
Class— 
Book- 






r 



—> 



4N EXPOSITION 



OP 



THE CAUSES AND CHARACTER 



tfp 



THE WAR 



WASHINGTON CITY: 

PRINTEB BY ROGER CHEW WEIGHTMAN. 






NOTE. 



This Exposition of the Causes and Character of the War, was prepared and 
00m:iiiit.;<l to the press, before any account liad heen received in tlic United States, 
of tlie signature of a treaty of peace, by tho \raerican and the British negotiators: 
and !i .vould li.ive been difficult, even if it were desirable, to withhold the exposition 
from tlic public. 

But the cliiirpes wliich har<' been :al<^mnly exirbited against the American go- 
Terniuent, In the face n- the world, render an exposition of its condiict necessary, 
in p Mcc as much as in war, for the honor of the ITnited States, and the unsullied 
reputiiUon of tlieir arms; left tho?e cha.grs sliould obtain credit with tlie present 
geni-.:ition; or pass, for truth, into the liistory of the times, upon the evidence of « 
flileat acquiesoence. 



AN EXPOSITION 



OP 



THE CAUSES AND CHARACTER 



OP 



THE IVAR. 



WHATEVER may be the termination of the negotiations 
at Ghent, the despatches of the American commissioners, 
which have been communicated by the president of the United 
States, to the congress, daring the present session, will distinct- 
ly unfold, to the attentive and impartial of all nations, the ob- 
jects and dispositions of the parties to the present war. 

The United States, relieved by the general pacification of 
the treaty of Paris, from the danger of actual sufferance, under 
the evils which had compelled them to resort to arms, have 
avowed their readiness to resume the I'elations of peace and 
amity with Great Britain, upon the simple and single condition, 
of preserving their territory and their sovereignty, entire and 
unimpaired. Their desire of peace, indeed, " upon terms of 
reciprocity, consistent with the rights of both parties, as sove- 
reign and independent nations,"* has not, at any time, been 
influenced by the provocations of an unprecedented course of 
hostilities; by the incitements of a successful campaign; or by 
the agitations which have seemed again to threaten the tran- 
quillity of Europe. 

But the British government, after inviting " a discussion 
with the government of America, for the conciliatory adjust- 
ment of the differences subsisting between the two states, with 
an earnest desire, on their part (as it was alleged) to bring 
them to a favorable issue, upon principles of a perfect recipro- 
city, not inconsistent with the established mixinis of public 
law, and with the maritime rights of the British empire;"! ^^^ 
alter "expressly disclaiming any intention to acquire an increase 
of territory, "J have peremptorily demanded, as the price of 

* See Mr Monroe's letter to icrd Castlereagh, dated January, \6lk 

t See l.)rd Oastlereagh's letier to W.. Monroe, dated the 4ih of iNovember, 1813. 

1 See the American despatch, dated the 12th of August, 1814. 



peace, concessions calculated merely for their own aggrandize- 
m»-nt, and for the humiliation of their adversary. At one time, 
tliev proposed, as their sine qua non^ a stipulation, that the 
Indians, inhabiting the country of the United States, within the 
limits established by the treaty of 1783, should be included, 
as the allies of Great Britain, (a party to that treaty,) in the 
projected pacification; and that definite boundaries should be 
settled (or the Indian territory, upon a basis, which would have 
operated to surrender, to a number of Indians, not, probably, 
excet-dmg a few thousands, the rights of sovereignty, as well 
as of soil, over nearly on( third of the territorial dominions of 
the United States, inhabited bv more than one hundred thou- 
sand of their citizens.* And, more recently, (withdrawing, in 
effect, that proposition,) they have offered to treat, on the basis 
of the ul7 possidetis; when, bv the operations of the war, they 
had obtained the military possession of an important part of 
the state of Massachusetts, which, it was known, could never 
be the subject of a cession, consistently with the honor and 
faith of the American government. f Thus, it is obvious, that 
Great Britain, neither regarding " the principles of a perfect 
reciprocity," nor the rule of her own practice and professions, 
has indulged pretensions, which could only be heard, in order 
to be rejected. The alternative, either vindictively to protract 
the war, or honorably to end it. has been fairly given to her 
option; but she wants the magnanimity to decide, while her 
apprehensions are awakened, for the result of the congress at 
A ienna, and her hopes are flattered, by the schemes of conquest 
in America. 

There are periods in the transactions of every country, as 
well as in the life of every individual, when self-examination 
becomes a duty of the highest moral obligation; when the go- 
vernment of a free people, driven from the path of peace, and 
baflled in every effort to regain it, may resort, for consolation, 
to the conscious rectitude of its measures; and when an appeal 
to mankind, founded upon truth and justice, cannot fail to en- 
gage those sympathies, by which even nations are led to parti- 

• Sec the American ilesijaiches, dated the I'-'th and 19ih of August, ISM-; the 
note of the British commissioners, dated the ll'ih of August, IMi; the note of 
the American commissioners, dated the '21&t of August, l»lt; the note of the 
British commissioiiers, dated llie 4tli of September, 181-1-; the note of the Ame- 
rican commissioners of the 'Jih of September, 1814; the note ot the British 
coinmis&ioners, dated the I'.'th of September, 1614; the note of the American 
commissioners, dated the -Gth of .September, 1814; the note of the British 
commissioners, daiid the bth of October, lbl4; and the note of the American 
commissioners, ct the l-'Jth of October, 1814. 

t Seethe note of the Hrilish commissioners, dated the 21st of October, 1814; 
ihe note of the American commissioners, dated the 2M\ of October, 1814; ai><^ 
♦he note of the Uritisli ooiDinisbioners, dated the 3 1st of October, lSl4. 



cipate in the fame and fortunes of each other. The United 
States, under these impressions, are neither insensible to the 
advantages, nor to the duties, of their peculiar situation. They 
have but recently, as it were, established their independence; 
and the volume of their national history lies open, at a glance, 
to every eye. The policy of their government, therefore, 
whatever it has been, in their foreign, as well as in their domes- 
tic, relations, it is impossible to conceal; and it must be difficult 
to mistake. If the assertion, that it has been a policy to pre- 
serve peace and amity with all the nations of the world, be 
doubted, the proofs are at hand. If the assertion, that it has 
been a policy to maintain the rights of the United States, but, 
at the same time, to respect the rights of every other nation, 
be doubted, the proofs will be exhibited. If the assertion, 
that it has been a policy to act impartially towards the bellige- 
rent powers of Europe, be doubted, the proofs will be found 
on record, even in the archives of England and of France. 
And if, in fine, the assertion, that it has been a policy, by all 
honorable means, to cultivate with Great Britain, those senti- 
ments of mutual good will, which naturally belong to nations 
connected by the ties of a common ancestry, an identity of lan- 
guage, and a similarity of manners, be doubted, the proofs will 
be found in that patient forbearance, under the pressure of ac- 
cumulating wrongs, which marks the period of almost thirty 
years, that elapsed between the peace of 1783 and the rupture 
of 1812. 

The United States had just recovered, under the auspices of 
their present constitution, from the debility which their revo- 
lutionary struggle had produced, when the convulsive move- 
ments of France excited throughout the civilized world, the 
mingled sensations of hope and fear — of admiration and alarm. 
The interest which those movements would, in themselves, 
have excited, was incalculably increased, however, as soon as 
Great Britain became a party to the first memDrable coalition 
against France, and assumed the character of a belligerent 
power; for, it was obvious, that the distance of the scene would 
no longer exempt the United States from the influence, and the 
evils, of the European conflict. On the one hand, their govern- 
ment was connected with France, by treaties of alliance and 
commerce; and the services which that nation had rendered 
to the cause of American independence, had made such im- 
pressions upon the public mind, as no virtuous statesman could 
rigidly condemn, and the most rigorous statesman would have 
sought in vain to efl'ace. On the other hand, Great Britain, 
leaving the treaty of 1783 unexecuted, forcibly retained the 
American posts upon the northern fronti;-r; and, slighting 



every overture to place the diplomatic and commercial rela« 
tions of the two countries, upon a fair and friendly foundation,* 
seemed to contemplate the success of the American revolu- 
tion, in a spirit of unextinguishable animosity. Her voice had, 
indeed, been heard from Quebec and Montreal, instigating the 
savages to war.f Her invisible arm was felt, in the defeats of 
general IIarmar,t and general St. Clair,|| and even the victory 
of general AVayne^ was achieved, in the presence of a fort 
which she had erected, far within the territorial boundaries of 
the United States, to stimulate and countenance the barbarities 
of the Indian warrior T Yet, the American government, nei- 
ther yielding to popular feeling, nor acting upon the impulse of 
national resentment, hastened to adopt the policy of a strict and 
steady neutrality; and solemnly announced that policy to the 
citi'/.ens at home, and to the nations abroad', by the proclama- 
tion of the 22d of April, 1793. Whatever may have been the 
trials of its pride, and of its fortitude; whatever may have been 
the imputations upon its fidelity and its honor; it will be de- 
monstrated, in the sequel, that the American government, 
throughout the European contest, and amidst all the changes of 
the objects, and the parties, that have been involved in that con- 
test, has inflexibly adhered to the principles which were thus, 
authoritatively, established, to regulate the conduct of the 
United States. 

It was reasonable to expect, that a proclamation of neutrality, 
issued under the circumstances which have been descjibed, 
would command the confidence and respect of Great Britain, 
however ofl'ensive it might prove to France, as contravening, 
essentiallv, tlie exposition which she was anxious to bestow up- 
on the treaties of commerce and alliance. But experience has 
shown, that the confidence and respect of Great Britain are not 
to be acquired, hv such acts of impartiality and independence. 
Under everv administration of the American government, the 
experiment has been made, and the experiment has I)een equally 
unsucctsslul: for, it was UDt more ellectuaily ascertained in the 
year lM..i, than at antecedent periods, that an exemption from 
the maritime usurjiation, and the commen ial monopolv, of 
Great Britain, could only I)e obtained upon the condition of be- 
coming an associate, in her enmities and her wars. While the 

• See Mr. Adamb' corrc-iponJcnce. 

■f Set the sj)ccchesor lord Dorchester. 

j Oiitlu- waiirhol the Mimuoi the lake, on the'ilst of October, 1790. 

II At Kort IJtcovcry, en the 4th ot" November, IVyi. 

/ Oil the Miami ot the lakes, in August, l/i'l 

1 Jve the curres|Miiidcnec lieiweeii iVlr. Kundol{)h, the American secretary of 
»iatr, and Mr. Ilammtr.d, the British jileiiijoteniiarN , dated Mav and .'uue, 
l.'.'t. 



proclamation of neutrality was still in the view of the British 
minister, an order of the 8th of June, 1793, issued from the 
cabinet, by virtue of which, " all vessels loaded wholly, or in 
part, with corn, flour, or meal, bound to any port in France, or 
any port occupied by the armies of France," were required to 
be carried, forcibly, into England; and the cargoes were either 
to be sold there, or security was to be given, that they should 
only be sold in the ports of a country, in amity with his Britan- 
nic majesty.* The moral character of an avowed design, to 
inflict famine upon the whole of the French people, was, at that 
time, properly estimated throughout the civilized world; and so 
glaring an infraction of neutral rights, as the British order was 
calculated to produce, did not escape the severities of diploma- 
tic animadversion and remonstrance. But this aggression was 
soon followed by another of a more hostile cast. In the war of 
1756, Great Britain had endeavored to establish the rule, that 
neutral nations were not entitled to enjoy the benefits of a trade 
with the colonies of a belligerent power, from which, in the sea- 
son of peace, they were excluded by the parent state. The rule 
stands without positive support from any general authority on 
public law. If it be true, that some treaties contain stipula- 
tions, by which the parties expressly exclude each other from 
the commerce of their respective colonies; and if it be true, that 
the ordinances of a particular state, often provide for the ex- 
clusive enjoyment of its colonial commerce; still Great Britain 
cannot be authorized to deduce the rule of the war of 1756, by 
implication, from such treaties and such ordinances, while it is 
not true, that the rule forms a part of the law of nations; nor 
that it has been adopted by any other government; nor that even 
Great Britain herself has uniformly practised upon the rule; 
since its application was unknown from the war of 1756, until 
the French war of 1792, including the entire period of the 
American war. Let it be, argumentatively, allowed, however, 
that Great Britain possessed the right, as well as the power, to 
revive and enforce the rule; yet, the time and the manner of 
exercising the power, would afford ample cause for reproach. 
The citizens of the United States had openly engaged in an 
extensive trade with the French islands, in the West Indies, 
ignorant of the alleged existence of the rule of the war of 
1756, or unapprised of any intention to call it into action, when 
the order of the 6th of November, 1793, was silently circulated 
among the British cruisers, consigning to legal adjudication, 
" all vessels loaden with goods, the produce of any colony of 

* See the order in council of the 8th of June, 1793,and the remonstrance of the 
American government. 



I'rancc, or carr\ ing prcnisions or siipfjlics, tor the use ot any 
such colon)'."* A great portion of the commerce of the United 
Slates was thus annihilated at a blow; the amicable dispositions 
of the government were again disregarded and contemned; 
the sensibility of the nation was excited to a high degree of 
resentment, by the apparent treachery of the British order; and 
a recourse to reprisals, or to war, for indemnity and redress, 
seemed to be unavoidable. But the love of justice had esta- 
blished the law of neutrality; and the love of peace taught a 
lesson of forbearance. Tlie American government, therefore, 
rising superior to the provocations and the passions of the day, 
instituted a special mission, to represent at the court ot Lon- 
don, the injuries and the indignities which it had suffered; " to 
vindicate its rights with firmness, and to cultivate peace with 
sincerity."! The immediate result of this mission, was a trea- 
ty of amity, commerce, and navigation, between the United 
States and Great Britain, which was signed by the negotiators 
on the 19th of November, 179*, and, finally ratified, with the 
consent of the senate, in the year 1795 : But both the mis- 
sion and its result, serve, also, to display the independence 
and the impartiality of the American government, in assert- 
ing its rights and performing its duties, equally unawed 
and unbiassed by the instruments of belligerent power, or per- 
suasion. 

On the foundation of this treaty the United States, in a pure 
spirit of good faith and confidence, raised the hope and the ex- 
pectation, that the maritime usurpations of Great Britain would 
cease to annoy them; that all doubtful claims of jurisdiction 
would be suspended; and that even the exercise of an incontest- 
able right would be so modified, as to present neither insidt, nor 
f)utrage, nor inconvenience, to their flag, or to their commerce. 
But the hope and the expectation of the United States have been 
laiallv disappointed. Some relaxation in the rigor, without 
any alteration in ilie principle, of the order in council ot the tilh 
of Novt mber, 1793, was introduced by the subsequent orders 
of ihchth of Janiviry, 1794, and the '2.Sth of January, 1798; but 
from the ratification of the treaty of 179i', until the short respite 
allordedby the treaty of Amiens, in J80'i, the commerce of the 
l.nited States continued to be the prey of British cruisers and 
priv:iie«rs, under the adjudicating patronage of the British tri- 
bunals. Another grievance, however, assumed at this epoch, 
a form and magnitude, which cast a shade over the social hap- 



• See the Hritish order of the Gih of November, 1795. 

t .Sccllic prcbicleiii's message to the senate, of the ifilh of April, 179K "oiv! 
lating Mr. Jay as envoy e-vtraorUinary to his Britannic majesty. 



piness, as well as the political independence of the nation. The 
merchant vessels of the United States were arn-sted on the high 
seas, while in the prosecution of distant voyages; considerable 
numbers of their crews were impressed into the naval service 
of Great Britain; the commercial adventures of the owners were 
often., consequently, defeated; and the loss of property, the em- 
barrassments of trade and navigation, and the scene of domestic 
affliction, became intolerable. This grievance (which consti- 
tutes an important surviving cause of the American declara- 
tion of war) was early, and has been incessantly, urged upon the 
attention of the British government. Even in the year 1792, 
they were told of " the irritation that it had excited; and of the 
difficulty of avoiding to make immediate reprisals on their sea- 
men in the United States."* They were told " that so many 
instances of the kind had happened, that it was quite necessary 
that they should explain themselves on the subject, and be led 
to disavow and punish such violence, which had never been ex- 
perienced from any other nation. "f And they were told " of the 
inconvenience of such conduct, and of the impossibility of let- 
ting it go on, so that the British ministry should be made sensi- 
ble of the necessity of punishing the past, and preventing the 
future. J" But after the treaty of amity, commerce, and navi- 
gation, had been ratified, the nature and the extent of the griev- 
ance became still more manifest; and it was clearly and lirmly 
presented to the view of the British government, as leading 
unavoidably to discord and war between the two nations. They 
were told, " that unless they would come to some accommodation 
which might ensure the American seamen against this oppression, 
measures would be taken to cause the inconvenience to be equally 
felt on both sides. "|| They were told, " that the impressment of 
American citizens, to serve on board of British armed vessels, 
was not only an injury to the unfortunate individuals, but it 
naturally excited certain emotions in the breasts of the nation to 
whom they belonged, and of the just and humane of every coun- 
try; and that an expectation was indulged that orders would be 
given, that the Americans so circumstanced should be immedi- 
ately hberated, and that the British officers should, in future, 
abstain from similar violences."^ They were told, " that the 

* See the letter of Mr. Jefferson, secretary of state, <o Mr. Pinkney, minister 

at London, dated the llth of June, 1792. 

f See the letter from the same to the same, dated the 12th of October, 1792, 
i See the letter from the same to the same, dated the tnh of November, 1792, 
11 See the letter from Mr. Pinkney, minister at London, to the secretary of 

state, dated the 13th of March, 1793. 

§ See the note of Mr. Jay, envov extraordinary, to lord Grenville, dated the 

30th of July, 1794., 



10 

subject was of much greater importance than had been supposed.; 
and that, instead of a few, and those in many instances equivocal 
cases, the American minister at the court of London had, in 
nine months (part of the years 1796 and 1797) made applications 
for the discharge of two hundred and seventy-one seamen, 
who had, in most cases, exhibited such evidence, as to satisfy 
him that they were real Americans, forced into the British ser- 
vice, and persevering, generally, in refusing pay and bounty."* 
They were told, " that if the British government had any regard 
to the rights of the United States, any respect for the nation, 
and placed any value on their friendship, it would facilitate the 
means of relieving their oppressed citizens. "f They were 
told, "that the British naval offi«ers often impressed Swedes, 
Danes, and other foreigners, from the vessels of the United 
States; that they might, with as much reason, rob American 
vessels of the property or merchandise of Swedes, Danes, and 
Portuguese, as seize and detain in their service, the subjects of 
those nations found onboard of American vessels; and that the 
president was extremely anxious to have this business of im- 
pressing placed on a reasonable footing. ";j: And they were told, 
♦'that the impressment of American seamen was an injury of 
very serious magnitude, which deeply affected the feelings and 
honor of the nation; that no right had been asserted to impress 
the natives of America^ yet, that they were impressed; they 
were dragged on board British ships of war, with the evidence 
of citizenship in their hands, and forced by violence there to 
serve, until conclusive testimonials of their birth could be ob- 
tained; that many must perish unrelieved, and all were detained 
a considerable time, in lawless and injurious confinement; that 
the continuance of the practice must inevitably produce discord 
between two nations, which ought to be the friends of each 
other; and that it was more advisal)le to desist from, and to take 
effectual measures to prevent, an acknowledged wrong, than by 
perseverance in that wrong, to excite against themselves the 
well-founded resentments of America, and force the govern- 
ment into measures, which may very possibly terminate in an 
open rupture. "II 

Such were the feelings and the sentiments of the American 

• Sec the letter of Mr. King, ministt-r at London, to the secretary of state, 
datiil (he 13ih of April. l.";»7. 

t Slc the letter from Mr I'u'kcrlng, secretary of state, to Mr. King, minister at 
Li'n<loii, (taitd ihc- lOthof Stjiicmher, iriKl. 

I See the ktiir from the s.;itne to the s;mie, dated the '2f)th of October, 179G. 
_ II Sec the letter fnitn Mr. M;ir.sh:Ul, secretary ot state, (no-r chief justice of the 
t''nltfd States,) to Mr- King, minister at London, dated the 20th of September, 
i»00. 



11 

government, under every change of its administration, in rela- 
tion to the IJritish practice of impressment; and such the re- 
monstrances addressed to the justice of Great Britain. It is 
obvious, therefore, that this cause, independent of every other, 
has been uniformly deemed a just and certain cause of war; 
yet, the characteristic policy of the United States still prevail- 
ed: remonstrance was only succeeded by negotiation; and every 
assertion of American rights, was accompanied with an over- 
ture, to secure, in any practicable form, the rights of Great 
Britain.* Time seemed, however, to render it more and more 
difficult to ascertain and fix the standard of the British rights, 
according to the succession of the British claims. The right 
of entering and searching an American merchant ship, for the 
purpose of impressment, was, for awhile, confined to the case 
of British deserters; and even so late as the month of Febru- 
ary, 1800, the minister of his Britannic majesty, then at Phila- 
delphia, urged the American government, " to take into consi- 
deration, as the only means of drying up every source of com- 
plaint and irritation, upon that head, a proposal which he had 
made two years before, in the name of his majesty's govern- 
ment, for the reciprocal restitution of deserters."t But this 
project of a treaty was then deemed inadmissible, by the presi- 
dent of the United States, and the chief officers of the execu- 
tive departments of the government, whom he consulted, for 
the same reason, specifically, which, at a subsequent period, 
induced the president of the United States, to withhold his ap- 
probation from the treaty negotiated by the American ministers 
at London, in the year 1806; namely: *' that it did not sufficient- 
ly provide against the impressment of American seamen;"^ 
and " that it is better to have no article, and to meet the con- 
sequences, than not to enumerate merchant vessels on the high 
seas, among the things not to be forcibly entered in search of 
deserters. "II But the British claim, expanding with singular 
elasticity, was soon found to include a right to enter Ameri- 
can vessels on the high seas, in order to search for and seize 
all British seamen; it next embraced the case of every Bri- 
tish subject; and, finally, in its practical enforcement, it has 

* See particularly, Mr. King's propositions to lord Grenville, and lord Hawkes- 
bury, of the 13th of April, 1797, the 15th of March, 1799, the 25th of Fe- 
bruary, 1801, and in July, 1813. 

t See Mr. Lision's note to Mr. Pickering, the 'secretary of state, dated the 4th 
of February, 1800. 

:^ S-e the opinion of Mr. Pickering, secretary of state, enclosing the plan of a 
treaty, dated the 3d of May, 1800, and the opinion of Mr. Wolcott, secretary 
of the treasury, dated the Hth of April, 1800. 

II See the opinion of Mr. Stoddert, secretary of the navy, dated the 23d of 
April, 1800, and the opinions of Mr. Lee, attorney general, dated the 26th of 
February, and the 30th of April, 1800. 



12 

been extended to every mariner, who could 'not prove, upon 
the spot, that he was a citizen of the United States. 

"While the nature of the British claim was thus ambiguous 
and fluctuating, the principle to which it was referred, for jus- 
tification and support, appeared to be, at once, arbitrary and 
illusory. It was not recorded in any positive code of the law 
of nations; it was not displayed in the elementary works of 
the civilian; nor had it ever been exemplified in the maritime 
usages of any other country, in any other age. In truth, it 
was the offspring of the municipal law of Great Britain alone; 
equally operative in a time of peace, and in a time of war; and, 
under all circumstances, inflicting a coercive jurisdiction, upon 
the commcice and navigation of the world. 

For the legitimate rights of the belligerent powers, the 
I nitt'd States had felt and evinced a sincere and open respect. 
Although they had marked a diversity of doctrine among the 
most celebrated jurists, upon many of the litigated points of the 
law of war; although they had formerly espoused, with the 
example of the most powerful government of Europe, the 
principles of the armed neutrality, which were established in 
the year 17S0, upon the basis of the memorable declaration of 
the emjjress of all the Russias; and although the principles of 
that decl '.ration have been incorporated into all their public 
treaties, except in the instance of the treaty of 17y-i-; yet, the 
United States, still faithful to the pacific and impartial policy 
which they professed, did not hesitate, even at the commence- 
ment of the French revolutionarv war, to accept and allow the 
exposition of the law of nations, as it was then maintained by 
Great Britain; and, consequently, to admit, upon a much con- 
tested point, that the property of her enemy, in their vessels, 
might be hiwl'ully captured as prize of war.* It was, also, 
ireely admitted, that a belligerent power had a right, with pro- 
per cautions, to enter and search American vessels, for the 
goods of an enemv, and for articles contraband of war; that, if 
upon a search .such goods or articles were found, or if, in the 
course of the search, persons in the military service of the ene- 
my were discovered, a belligerent had a right of transhipment 
and removal; that a belligerent had a right, in doubtful cases, 
to carry American vessels to a convenient station, for further 
examination; and that a belligerent had a right to exclude 
American vessels from ports and places, under the blockade of 
an ad«quatc naval force. These rights the law of nations might, 

• Sec tlif corn spondencc of the yiar 17'J2, between Mr. Jelltrson, secretary 
of Malt, iiiil tJic ministers of Great IJritain and France. See uLso, IVlr Jefter- 
fon's letter to the American minister at Pans, of the same year, requesting the 
recall of Mr. Genet 



IS 

reasonably, be deemed to sanction; nor has a fair exercise oi 
the powers necessary for the enjoyment of these rights, been, 
at any time, controverted, or opposed, by the American govern- 
ment. 

But it must be again remarked, that the claim of Great Bri- 
tain was not to be satisfied, by the most ample and explicit re- 
cognition of the law of war; for, the law of war treats only of 
the relations of a belligerent to his enemy, while the claim of 
Great Britain embraced, also, the relations between a sovereign 
and his subjects. It was said, that every British subject was 
bound by a tie of allegiance to his sovereign, which no lapse of 
time, no change of place, no exigency of life, could possibly 
■weaken, or dissolve. It was said, that the British sovereign 
was entitled, at all periods, and on all occasions, to the services 
of his subjects. And it was said, that the British vessels of war 
upon the high seas, might lawfully and forcibly enter the mer- 
chant vessels of every other nation (for the theory of these 
pretensions is not limited to the case of the United States, 
although that case has been, almost exclusively, affected by 
their practical operation) for the purpose of discovering and 
impressing British subjects.^ The United States presume not 
to discuss the forms, or the principles, of the governments esta- 
blished in other countries. Enjoying the right and the blessing 
of self-government, they leave, implicitly, to every foreign 
nation, the choice of its social and political institutions. But, 
whatf'ver may be the form, or the principle, of government, it is 
an universal axiom of public law, among sovereign and indc 
pendent states, that every nation is bound so to use and enjoy 
its own rights, as not to injure, or destroy, the rights of any other 
nation. Say then, that the tie of allegiance cannot be severed, 
or relaxed, as respects the sovereign and the subject; and say, 
that the sovereign is, at all times, entitled to the services of the 
subject; still, there is nothing gained, in support of the British 
claim, unless it can, also, be said, that the British sovereign has 
a right to seek and seize his subject, while actually within the 
dominion, or under the special protection, of another sovereign 
state. This will not, surely, be denominated a process of the 
law of nations, for the purpose of enforcing the rights of war; 
and if it shall be tolerated as a process of the municipal law of 
Great Britain, for the purpose of enforcing the right of the 
sovereign to the service of his subjects, there is no principle of 
discrimination, which can prevent its being employed in peace, 
or in war, with all the attendant abuses of force and fraud, to 
justify the seizure of British subjects for crimes, or for debts; 

• Seethe British declaration of the 10th of January, 1813. 



1^ 

and thr seizure of British property, for any cause that shall be 
arbitrarily asbigned. The introduction of these degrading no- 
velties, into the maritime code of nations, it has been the ardu- 
ous task of the American government, in the onset, to oppose; 
and it rests with all other governments to decide, how far their 
honor and their interests must be eventually implicated, by a 
tacit acquiescence-, in the successive usurpations of the British 
flag. If the right claimed by Great Britain be, indeed, common 
to all governments, the ocean will exhibit, in addition to its 
man)- other perils, a scene of everlasting strife and contention: 
but what otlier government has ever claimed or exercised the 
right? If the right shall be exclusively established as a trophy of 
the naval superiority of Great Britain, the ocean, which ha» 
been sometimes emphatically denominated, "the high way of 
nations," will be identified, in occupancy and use, with the do- 
minions of the British crown; and every other nation must 
enjoy the liberty of passage, upon the payment of a tribute, or 
the indulgence of a license: but what nation is prepared, for this 
sacrifice of its honor and its interests? And if, after all, the 
right be now asserted (as experience too plainly indicates) for 
the purpose of imposing upon the United States, to accommo- 
date the British maritime policy, a new and odious limitation of 
the sovereignty and independence, which were acquired by the 
glorious revolution of 1770, it is not for the American govern- 
ment to calculate the duration of a war, that shall be waged, in 
resistance of the active attempts of Great Britain, to accom- 
plish her project: for, where is the American citizen, who would 
tolerate a day's submission, to the vassalage of such a con- 
dition? 

But the American government has seen, with some surprize, 
ihc gloss, which the prince regent of Great Britain, in his de- 
claration of the 10th of January, 1813, has condescended to 
bestow upon the British claim of a right to impress men, on 
board of the merchant vessels of other nations; and the retort, 
which he has ventured to make, upon the conductof the United 
States, relative to the controverted doctrines of expatriation. 
The American government, like every other civilized govern- 
ment, avows the principle, and indulges the practice, of natural- 
izing foreigners. In Great Britain, and throughout the conti- 
nent of Kurope, th(- laws and regulations upon the subject, are 
not matcrialK' dissimilar, when compared with the laws and 
rcg\ilaiionsoi the United Slates. 'J'he effect,however, of such na- 
turalization, upon the connexion, which previously subsisted, 
between the naturalized person, and the government of the 
coimtry of his birth, has been differently considered, at differ- 
' nt times, and in diiTerent places. Still, there are many re- 



15 

ipects, in which a diversity of opinion does not exist, and cannot 
irise. It is agreed, on all hands, that an act of naturalization 
s not a violation of the law of nations; and that, in particular, 
t is not, in itself, an offence against the government, whose 
jubject is naturalized. It is agreed, that an act of naturaliza- 
tion creates, between the parties, the reciprocal obligations of 
allegiance and protection. It is agreed, that while a natural- 
ized citizen continues within the territory and jurisdiction of 
his adoptive government, he cannot be pursued, or seized, or 
restrained, by his former sovereign. It is agreed, that a natu- 
ralized citizen, whatever may be thought of the claims of the 
sovereign of his native country, cannot lawfully be withdrawn 
from the obligations of his contract of naturalization, by the 
force ,or the seduction, of a third power. And it is agreed, that 
no sovereign can lawfully interfere, to take from the service, or 
the employment, of another sovereign, persons who are not 
the subjects of either of the sovereigns engaged in the transac- 
tion. Beyond the principles of these accorded propositions, 
what have the United States done to justify the imputation of 
" harboring British seamen, and of exercising an assumed right, 
to transfer the allegiance of British subjects?"* The United 
States have, indeed, insisted upon the right of navigating the 
ocean in peace and safety, protecting all that is covered by their 
flag, as on a place of equal and common jurisdiction to all 
nations; save where the law of war interposes the exceptions of 
visitation, search, and capture: but, in doing this, they have 
done no wrong. The United States in perfect consistency, it 
is believed, with the practice of all belligerent nations, not even 
excepting Great Britain herself, have, indeed, announced a de- 
termination, since the declaration of hostilities, to afford pro- 
tection, as well to the naturalized, as to the native citizen , who, 
giving the strongest proofs of fidelity, should be taken in arms 
by the enemy; and the British cabinet well know, that this de- 
termination could have no influence upon those councils of their 
sovereign, which preceded and produced the war. It was not, 
then, to *' harbor British seamen," nor to "transfer the allegi- 
ance of British subjects;" nor to "cancel the jurisdiction of 
their legitimate sovereign;" nor to vindicate " the pretension 
that acts of naturalization, and certificates of citizenship, were 
as valid out of their own territory, as within it;"t that the 
United States have asserted the honor and the privilege of their 
flag, by the force of reason and of arms. But it was to resist 
a systematic scheme of maritime aggrandizement, which, pre- 

* See the British declaration of the 10th of January, 1813. 

t See these passages in the British declaration of the 10th cf January, ISir- 



16 

scribing to every other nation the limits of a territorial boun« 
dar\', claimed for Great Britain the exchisive dominion of the 
seas; and which, spurning the settled principles of the law of 
war, condemned the ships and mariners of the United States, 
to suffer, upon the high seas, and virtually within the jurisdic- 
tion ot their flag, the most rigorous dispensations of the British 
municipal code, inflicted by the coarse and licentious hand of a 
British press-gang. 

The injustice of the British claim, and the cruelty of the 
British practice, have tested, for a series of years, the pride 
and the patience of the American government: but, still, every 
experiment was anxiously made, to avoid the last resort of na- 
tions. The claim of Great Britain, in its theory, was limited 
to the right of seeking and imprebsing its own subjects, on 
board of the merchant vessels of the United States, although, 
in fatal experience, it has been extended (as already appears) 
to the seizure of the subjects of every other power, sailing un- 
der a voluntary contract with the American merchant; to the 
seizure of the naturalized citizens of the United States, sailing, 
also, under voluntary contracts, which every foreigner, inde- 
pendent of any act of naturalization, is at liberty to form in 
every country; and even to the seizure of the native citizens 
of the United States, sailing on board the ships of their own 
nation, in the prosecution of a lawful commerce. The excuse, 
for what has l)een unfeelingly termed, ''partial mistakes, and 
occasional abuse,"* when the right of impressment was prac- 
tised towards vessels of the United States, is, in the words of 
the prince regent's declaration, " a similarity of language and 
manners:" but was it not known, when this excuse was offered 
to the world, that the Russian, the Swede, the Dane, and the 
German; that the Frenchman, the Spaniard, and the Portu- 
guese; nay, that the African and the Asiatic; between whom 
and the [leuple of Great Britain there exists no similarity of 
language, manners, or complexion; had been, equally with the 
American citizen and the British subject, the victims of the 
impress tyranny^f If, however, the excuse be sincere; if the 
real object of the impressment be merely to secure to Great 
Britain, the naval services of her own subjects, and not to man 
her fleets, in every practicable mode of enlistment, by right, 
(jr by wrong; and if ii just and generous government, profess- 
ing nuiiuul friendship und respect, may be presumed to prefer 
the accomplishment, even of a legitimate purpose, by means 

• Sec the iiriiish decLirution of the lOih of January, 1813. 

t See the kttir of Mr Pickering, secretary of state, to Mr. King, minister at 
London, of the .-'Cth of October, 1790; ami the letter of Mr. Marshall, secretary 
'.if state, to Mr. King, of the iUlh of bcptenibcr, 1800 



17 

the least afRlcting and injurious to others, why have the over- 
tures of the United States, offering- other means as effectual as 
impressment, for the purpose avowed, to the consideration and 
acceptance of Great Britain, been forever eluded or rejected? 
It has been offered, that the number of men to be protected by 
an American vessel, should be limited by her tonnage; that 
IJritish officers should be permitted, in British ports, to enter 
the vessel, in order to ascertain the number of men on board; 
and that, in case of an addition to her crew, the British sub- 
jects enlisted should be liable to impressment.* It was offered 
in the solemn form of a law, that American seamen should be re- 
gistered; that they should be provided with certificates of citizen- 
shipjf and that the roll of the crew of every vessel should be for- 
mally authenticated. J It was offered, that no refuge or protec- 
tion should be given to deserters; but that, on the contrary, they 
should be surrendered.il It was "again and again offered, to con- 
cur in a convention, which it was thought practicable to be form- 
ed, and which should settle the questions of impressment, in a 
manner that would be safe for England, and satisfactory to the 
Lnited States. '•§ It was offered, that each party should prohibit 
its citizens or subjects, from clandestinelv concealing or carrying 
away, from the territories or colf>nies of the other, any seaman 
belonging to the other party.l And, conclusively, it has been 
offered and declared by law, that " after the termination of the 
present war, it should not be lawful to employ on board of any 
of the public or private vessels of the United States, any per- 
sons, except citizens of the United States; and that no foreign- 
er should be admitted to become a citizen hereafter, \vho had 
not, for the continued term of five years, resided within the 
United States, without being, at any time, during the five 
years, out of the territory of the United States."** 

It is manifest then, that such provision might be made by 
law; and that such provision has been repeatedly and urgently 
proposed; as would, in all future times, exclude from the mari- 

* See the letter of Mr. Jefferson, secretary of state, to Mr. Pinkney, minis" 
ter at London, dated the 11th of June, 1792, and the letter of Mr. Pickenngi 
secretary of state, to Mr. King, minister at London, dated the 8th of June* 

•I79t;. 

t See the act of congress, passed the 28th of May, ITOii. 

i See the letter of Mr. Pickering, secretary of state, to jNIr. King, minister at 
London, dated the 8th of June, 1/'J6. 

II See the project of a treaty on the subject, between Mr. Pickering, secreta- 
tary of state, and Mr. Liston, the British mmister, at Philadelphia, in the 
year IbOO. 

§ See the letter of Mr. King, minister at London, to the secretary of state, 
dated the 15th of March, 1/99. 

^ See the letter of Mr. King, to die secretary of state, dated in July, 1803. 

'*'■ See the act of congress, passed on t}ie 3d of M«rch, 1S13, 



time service of the United States, both in public and in private 
vessels, every person, who could, possibly, be claimed by 
Great Britain, as a native subject, whether he had, or had not, 
been naturalized inAmeiica* Enforced by the same sane- 
tions and securities, which are employed to enforce the penal 
code of Great Britain, as well as the penal code of the United 
Stat-s, the provision would aflbrd the strongest evidence, that 
no British subject could be found in service on board of an 
American vessel; and* consequently, whatever might be the 
British light of impressment, in the abstract, there would re- 
main no justifiable motive, there could hardlv be invented a 
plausible pretext, to exercise it, at the expense of the American 
right of lawful commerce. If, too, as it has sometimes been 
insinuated, there would, nevertheless, be room for frauds and 
evasions, it is sufficient to observe, that the American govern- 
ment would always be ready to hear, and to redress, every 
just complaint: or, if redress were sought and refused, (a pre- 
liminary course, that ought never to have been omitted, but 
which Great Britain has never pursued,) it would still be in the 
power of the British government to resort to its own force, by- 
acts equivalent to war, for the reparation of its wrongs. But 
(ireat Britain has, unhappily, perceived in the acceptance of 
the overtures of the American government, consequences inju- 
rious to her maritime policy; and, therefore, withholds it, at 
the expense of her justice. She perceives, perhaps, a loss of 
the American nursery for her seamen, while she is at peace; 
a loss of the service of American crews, while she is at war; 
and a loss of many of those opportunities, which have enabled 
her to enrich her navy, by the spoils of the American com- 
merce, without exposing her own commerce to the risk of reta- 
liation or reprisals. 

'I'hus. were the United States, in a season of reputed peace, 
involved in the evils of a state of war; and thus was the Ame- 
rican flag annoyed by a nation still professing to cherish the 
sentiments of mutual friirndsh'ip and respect, which had been 
recently vouched, by the faith of a solemn treaty. But the 
American government even yet abstained from vindicating its 
rights, and from avenging its wrongs, by an appeal to arms. 
It was not an insensibility to those wrongs; nor a dread of Bri- 
tish power; nor a subserviency to Britiih interestts that pre- 
vailed, at that period, in the coum-ils of the United States: but, 
under all trials, the American government ai)stained from the 
appeal to arms then, as it has, repeatedly since done, in its col- 

Sctf the letter of instructions (rum Mr Monroe, secretary of state, to th<p 
pleir!|)OK-iitiariv.s for treating of peace with Great Britain, uniler the niediaii' r. 
of the enijieror .Mexaiidti, dated the Inth ot April, 1S13. 



19 

lisions with France, as well as with Great Britain, from the 
purest love of peace, while peace could be rendered compatible 
with the honor and independence of the nation. 

During the period, which has hithert(j been more particularly 
contemplated (from the declaration of hostilities between Great 
Britain and France in the year 1792, until the short-lived paci- 
fication of the treaty of Amiens in 1802) there were not want- 
ing occasions, to test the consistency and the impartiality of the 
American government, by a comparison of its conduct towards 
Gnat Britain, with its conduct towards other nations. The 
manifestations of the extreme jealousy of the French govern- 
ment, and of the intemperate zeal of its ministers near the 
United States, were co-eval with the proclamation of neutrality; 
but after the ratification of the treaty of London, the scene of 
violence, spoliation, and contumely, opened by France, upon the 
United States, became such, as to admit, perhaps, of no paral- 
lel, except in the cotemporaneous scenes which were exhibited 
by the injustice of her great competitor. The American go- 
vernment acted, in both cases, on the same pacific policy; in the 
same spirit of patience and forbearance; but with the same 
determination, also, to assert the honor and independence of 
the nation. When, therefore, every conciliatory effort had failed, 
and when two successive missions of peace had been contv^mp- 
tuously repulsed, the American government, in the year 1798, 
annulled its treaties with France, and waged a maritime war 
against that nation, for the defence of its citizens, and of its 
commerce, passing on the high seas. But as soon as the hope 
was conceived, of a satisfactory change in the dispositions of 
the French government, the American government hastened 
to send another mission to France; and a convention, signed in 
the year 1800, terminated the subsisting differences between 
the two countries. 

Nor were the United States able, during the same period, to 
avoid a collision with the government of Spain, upon many im- 
portant and critical questions of boundary and commerce; of 
Indian warfare, and maritime spoliation. Preserving, however, 
their system of moderation, in the assertion of their rights, a 
course of amicable discussion and explanation, produced mu- 
tual satisfaction; and a treaty of friendship, limits, and naviga- 
tion, was formed in the year 1795, by which the citizens of the 
United States acquired a right, for the space of three years, to 
deposite their merchandises and effects in the port of New Or- 
leans; with a promise, either that the enjoyment of that right 
should be indefinitely continued, or that another part of the 
banks of the Mississippi should be assigned for an equivalent 
establishment. But, when, in the year 1802, the port of New Or- 



20 

leans was abruptly closed against the citizens of the United 
Slates, with'ut an assignment of any other equivalent place of 
deposite» the harmony of the two countries was again most seri- 
ously endangered; until the Spanish government, yielding to 
the remonstrances of the United States, disavowed the act of the 
iniendant of New Orleans, and ordered the right of dcposite to 
be reinstated, on the terms of the treaty of 1795. 

The effects produced, even by a temporary suspension of the 
right of deposite at New Orleans, upon the interests and feelings 
of the nation, naturally suggested to the American government, 
the expediency of guarding against their recurrence, by the 
acquisition of a permanent property in tiie province ot Louisi- 
ana. The minister of the United States, at Madrid, was, ac- 
cordingly, instructed to apply to the government of Spain upon 
the subject; and, on the *th of May, 1803, he received an an- 
swer, stating, that "by the retrocession made to France oi 
Louisiana, that power regained the province, with the limits it 
had, saving the rights acquired by other powers; and that the 
United States could address themselves to the French govern- 
ment, to negotiate the acquisition of territories, which might 
suit their interest."* But before this reference, official infor- 
mation of the same fact had been received by Mr. Tinkney 
from the court of Spain, in the month of March preceding, and 
the American government, having instituted a special mission 
to negotiate the purchase of Louisiana from France, or from 
Spain, whichever should be its sovereign, the purchase was, 
accordingly, accomplished, for a valuable consideration, (that 
was punctually paid) by the treaty concluded at Paris, on the 
.SOth of April, ISO.?. 

The American government has not seen, without some sen- 
sibility, that a transaction, accompanied by such circumstances 
of general publicity, and of scrupulous good faith, has been 
denounced bv the prince regent, in his declaration of the 10th 
of January, 18J 3, as a proof of the "ungenerous conduct" of the 
United States towards Spain. f In amplification of the royal 
charge, the British negotiators at Ghent, have presumed to 
impute " the acquisition of Louisiana, by the United States, to 
a spirit of aggrandizement, not necessary to their own security;'' 
and to maintain " that the jnuchase was made against the known 
conditions, on which it h:id been ceded by Spain to France;"J 
that " in the face of the protestation of the minister of his catho- 
lic majesty at Washington, the president of the United States 

• See the letter from Don Pedro Cevullos, the minister of Spain, to Mr. C. Pink- 
ncy, the minister of the United States, dated the Ith of May, 1S03, from which 
the passage cited is literally translated. 

t See the prince regent s declaration of the 10th of January, 1813. 

1 fiee the note of tlie IJiitir.h conn-nissioners, dated the tth of September, 1814. 



21 

ratified the treaty of purchase;"* and that *' there was good 
reason to believe, that many circumstances attending the trans- 
action were industriously concealed. "t The American govern- 
ment cannot condescend to retort aspersions so unjust, in Ian-, 
guage so opprobrious; and peremptorily rejects the pretension 
of Great Britain, to interfere in the business of the United 
States and Spain: but it owes, nevertheless, to the claims of 
truth, a distinct statement of the facts which have been thus 
niisrepr^ented. ^¥hen the special mission was appointed to 
negotiate the purchase of Louisiana from France, in the manner 
already mentioned, the American minister, at London, was in- 
structed to explain the object of the mission; and having made 
the explanation, he was assured by the British government, 
*' that the communication was received in good part; no doubt 
was suggested olthe right oi the United S'.ates to pursue, sepa- 
rately and alone, the objects they aimed at; but the British 
government appeared to be satisfied with the president's views, 
on. this important subject.''^ As soon, too, as the treaty of 
purchase was concluded, before hostilities were again actually 
commenced between Great Britain and France, and previously, 
indeed, to the departure of the French ambassador from Lon- 
don, the American minister openly notified to the British go» 
vernnient, that a treaty had been signed, " by which the com- 
plete sovereignty of the town and territory of New Orleans, as 
well as of all Louisiana, as the same was heretofore possessed by 
Spain, had been acquired by the United States of America; and 
that in drawing up the treaty, care had been taken so to frame 
the same, as not to infringe any right of Great Britain, in the 
navigation of the river Mississippi. "|| In the answer ot the Bri- 
tish government, it was explicitly declared by lord Hawkesbury, 
*' that he had received his majesty's commands to express the 
pleasure with which his majesty had received the intelligence; 
and to add, that his majesty regarded the care, which had been 
taken so to frame the treaty as not to infringe any right of Great 
Britain in the navigation of the Mississippi, as the most satis- 
factory evidence of a disposition on the part of the government 
of the United States, correspondent with that which his majes- 
ty entertained, to promote and improve that harmony, which 
so happily subsisted between the two countries, and which was 



* See the note of the Britishcommissioners, dated the 19th of September, 1814. 

f Seethe note of the British commissioners, dated the 8th of October, 1814. 

jf See the letter from the secretary of state, to Mr. King, the American mini- 
ster at London, dated the 29th of January, 1803; and Mr. King's letter to the 
.secretary ot state, dated the 28th of April, 1803. 

!i See the letter of Mr. King, to lord Hawkesbury, dated the 15th of May, 1803 



«2 

so conducive to their mutual benefit."* The world will judge, 
whetlicr, under such circumstances, the British government had 
any cause, on its own accoinit, to arraign the conduct of the 
United States, in making the purchase ol Louisiana; and, cer- 
tainly, no greater cause will be found for the arraignment, on 
account of Spain. The Spanish government was apprised of 
the intention of the United States to negotiate for the 
purchase of that province; its ambassador witnessed the pro- 
gress of the negotiation at Paris; and the conclusion of the trea- 
ty, on the 30ih of April, 1803, was promptly known and under- 
stood at IMadrid. Yet, the Spanish government interposed no 
objection, no protestation, against the transaction, in Europe; 
and it was not until the month of September, 1803, that the 
American government heard, with surprize, from the minister 
of Spain, ai Washington, that his catholic majesty was dissatis- 
fied with the cession of Louisiana to the United States. Not- 
withstanding this diplomatic remonstrance, however, the Spa- 
nish government proceeded to deliver the possession of Louisi- 
ana to France, in execution of the treaty of St. lldelfonso; saw 
France, by an almost simultaneous act, transfer the possession 
to the United Statss, in execution of the treaty of purchase; 
and, finally, instructed the Marquis de Casa Yrujo, to present to 
the American government, the declaration of the 15th of May, 
1804, acting ' by the special order of his sovereign," " that the 
explanations, which the government of France had given to his 
catholic majesty, concerning the sale of Louisiana to the United 
States, and the amicable dispositions, on the part of the king, 
his master, towards these states, had determined him to abandon 
the opposition, which, at a prior period, and with the most sub- 
stantial motives, he had manifested against the transaction."! 

But alter this amicable and decisive arrangement of alldift'er- 
ences, in relation to the validity of the Louisiana purchase, a 
question of some embarrassment remained, in relation to the 
boundaries of the ceded territory. This question, however, 
the American government always has been, and alwavs will be, 
willing to discuss, in the most candid manner, and to settle 
upon the most liberal basis, with the government of Spain. It 
was not, therefore, a fair topic, with which to inflame the prince 
regent's declaration; or to embellish the diplomatic notes of 
the British negotiators at Ghent. J The period has arrived, 

• See ihc letter of lord Hawkesbury, to Mr. Kinp, dated the 19th of May, 
1803. 

t See the letter of the Marquis de Casa Yrujo, to the American secretary of 
state, dated the 15th of May, 1S04. 

I Sec the prince regait's declaration of ilic 10th of January, 1813. See the 
notes of the BriUi,h commissioners, dated 19th September, bth October, 1814. 



23 

when Spain, relieved from her European labors, may be ex- 
pected to bestow her attention, more effectually, upon the state 
of her colonies; and, acting with the wisdom, justice, and mag- 
nanimity, of which she has given frequent examples, she will 
find no difficulty, in meeting the recent advances of the Ameri- 
can government, for an honorable adjustment of every point in 
controversy between the two countries, without seeking the aid 
of British mediation, or adopting the animosity of British coun- 
cils. 

But still the United States, feeling a constant mterest in the 
opinion of enlightened and impartial nations, cannot hesitate to 
embrace the opportunity, for representing, in the simplicity ot 
truth, the events, by which they have been led to take posses- 
sion of a part of the Floridas, notwithstanding the claim of 
Spain to the sovereignty of the same territory, In the accepta- 
tion and understanding of the United States, the cession of Lou- 
isiana embraced the country south of the Mississip|)i territory, 
and eastward of the river Mississippi, and extending to the 
river Perdido; but " their conciliatory views; and their confi- 
dence in the justice of their cause, and in the success of a can- 
did discussion and amicable negotiation with a just and friendly 
power, induced them to acquiesce in the temporary continu- 
ance of that territory, under the Spanish authority."* When, 
however, the adjustment of the boundaries of Louisiana, as 
well as a reasonable indemnification, on account of maritime 
spoliations, and the suspension of the right of deposite at New 
Orleans, seemed to be indefinitely postponed, on the part of 
Spain, bv events which the United States had not contributed 
to produce, and could not control; when a crisis had arrived 
subversive of the order of things under the Spanish authori- 
ties, contravening the views of both parties, and endangering 
the tranquillitv and security of the adjoining territories, by the 
intrusive establishment of a government, independent of Spain, 
as well as of the United States: and when, at a later period, 
there was reason to believe, that Great Britain, herself, design- 
ed to occupy the Floridas, (and she has, indeed, actually occu- 
pied Pensacola, for hostile purposes,) the American government, 
without departing from its respect for the rights of Spain, and 
even consulting the honor of that state, unequal, as she then was, 
to the task of suppressing the intrusive establishment, was impel- 
led by the paramount principle of self preservation, to rescue its 
own rights from the impending danger. Hence, the United 
States in the year ISIO, proceeding, step by step, according to 

* See the proclamation of the pvesldeht of the United States, authorizing go- 
vernor Ckiiborne to take possession of the territory, dated the 27th of October, 
ISlO, 



ill 

the growin!^ exigencies of the time, took possession of the 
country, in which the standard of independence hnd been dis- 
played, excepting such places as were held by a Spanish force. 
In the year 1811, they authorized their president, by law, pro- 
visionallv to accept of the possession of East Florida from the 
local authorities, or to pre-occupy it against the attempt of a 
foreign power to seize it. In 1813, they obtained the possession 
of iMobile, the only place then held by a Spanish force in "West 
Florida; with a view to their own immediate security, but 
without varying the questions depending between them and 
Spain, in relation to that province. And in the year 181i, the 
American commander, acting under the sanction of the law of 
nations, but unauthorized by the orders of his government, 
drove trom Pensacola the British troops, who, in violation of 
the neutral territory of Spain, (a violation which Spain, it 
is believed, must herself resent, and would have resisted, 
if the opportunity had occurred,) seized and fortified that sta- 
tion, to aid in military operations against the United States. 
But all these measures of safety and necessity were frankly 
explained, as they occurred, to the government of Spain, and 
even to the government of Great Britain, antecedently to the 
declaration of war, with the sincerest assurances, that the pos- 
session of the territory thus acquired, " should not cease to 
be a subject of fair and friendly negotiation and adjustment."*^ 
The jjresent review of the conduct of the United States, to- 
wards the belligerent powers ot Europe, will be regarded, by 
every candid mind, as a necessary medium, to vindicate their 
national character, Irom the unmerited imputations of the 
prince regent's declaration of the 10th of January, 1813; and 
not as a medium, voluntarily assumed, according to the insinu- 
ations of that declaration, for the revival of unworthy prejudices, 
or vindictive passions, in reference to transact'ons that are 
past. The treaty ot Amiens, which seemed to terminate the 
•war in Europe, seemed, also, to terminate the neutral sufferings 
of America; l)Ut the hope of repose was, in both respects, de- 
lusive and transient. 'I'he hostilities which were renewed be- 
tween Great Britain and France, in the year 1803, were imme- 

* See the lettir from tlie secretary oi" state, to governor Claiborne, and the 
president's protlaniation, datcil the 'i7tli of October, 1}<10: 

Sec the proceedings of the convention of Florida, transmitted to the secretary 
of state, by the governor of the Alississippi territory, in his letter of the 17th of 
October, )!SlU; and the answer of the bccietary of state, dated the 15th of No- 
vember, IhlO: 

See the letter of Mr. Morier, British charge d'alfaires, to the secretary of 
state, dated the l.'ith of December, 1^10; and the secretary's answer. 

See tlie coire.'ijKj.idence bciween Mr. Monroe, and Mr Foster, the British 
minister, in tlie mouths of July, Septcinber, and November, 1811. 



25 

ately followed hv a renewal of the aggressions of the belligt" 
rent powers, upon the commercial rights, and political indepen- 
dence, of the United States. There was scarcely, therefore, 
an interval, separating the aggressions of the first war, from the 
aggressions of the second war; and although, in nature, the ag- 
gressions continued to be the same, in extent, they became in- 
calculably more destructive. It will be seen, however, that the 
American government, inflexibly maintained its neutral and pa- 
cific policy, in every extremity of the latter trial, with the same 
good fiiith and forbearance, that, in the former trial, had distin- 
guished its conduct; until it was compelled to choose, from the 
alternative, of national degradation, or national resistance. 
And if Great Britain alone then became the object of the Ame- 
rican declaration of war, it will be seen, that Great Britain 
alone, had obstinately closed the door of amicable negotiation. 

The American minister at London, anticipating the rupture 
between Great Britain and France, had obtained assurances 
from the British government, " that, in the event of war, the 
instructions given to their naval officers should be drawn up 
with plainness and precision; and, in general, that the rights of 
belligerents should be exercised in moderation, and with due 
rr-spcct for those of neutrals."* And in relation to the impor- 
tant subject of impressment, he had actually prepared for sig- 
nature, with the assent of lord Hawkesbury and lord St. Vin- 
cent, a convention, to continue during five years, declaring, 
that " no seaman, nor seafaring person, should, upon the high 
seas, and without the jurisdiction of either party, be demanded 
or taken out of any ship, or vessel, belonging to the citizens 
or subjects of one of the parties, by the public or private 
armed ships, or men of war, belonging to, or in the service of, 
the other party; and that strict orders should be given for the 
due observance of the engagement."']" This convention, which 
explicitly relinquished impressments from American vessels, 
on the high seas, and to which the British ministers had, at 
first, agreed, lord St. Vincent was desirous afterwards to mo- 
dify, " stating, that on further reflection, he was of opinion, 
that the narrow seas should be expressly excepted, they having 
been, as his lordship remarked, immemorially considered to be 
within the dominion of Great Britain." The American mini- 
ster, however, "having supposed, from the tenor of his conver- 
sations with lord St. Vincent, that the doctrine of ?nare claiC' 
sum would not be revived against the United States on this oc- 
casion; but that England would be content, with the limited ju- 

* See the letter of Mr. King, to the secretary of state, dated the 16th of May 
1803. 
t See the letter of Mr- King, to the secretary of state, dated July, 1303. 

4. 



20 



risdlction, or dominion, over the seas aajacentto her terntories, 
'vhkh s assigned by the lasv of nations to other states, was d.s- 
Tppoin ed, on receiving lord St. Vincent's commumcation; and 
cE rather to abandon th. negotiation, than to acquiesce m 
thrdoct ine it proposed to establish."* But it was stdl sonae 
an.faction to receive a formal declaration trmn the Br.nsh go- 
vernment, communicated by its min.ster at >\as^.mston, a.ter 
the recommencement of the war in Europe, which promised m 
efftct tHeinstate the practice of naval blockades, upon the 
princ pies of the law of nations; so that no blockade should be 
?o "sid'ered as existing, '• unless in respect of P-t-u - po 
which mijrht be actually invested; and, then, that the vessels 
bound "'such ports should not be captured, unless they had 
oreviouslv been warned not to enter them, t 
^ All the precautions of the American government were, never. 
theles, ineffectual; and the assurances of the British govern, 
rnent were, in no instance, verified. The outrage of impress- 

mennva^a ain, indiscriminately, P"P---^Xe"etrmity of 
everv American vessel, and on every sea. . The enormit> ol 
b ocicades, estabhshed by - order in council, without a leg^^^^^ 
mate object, and maintained by an order m council, ^^'thout the 
Tpphca.^on^f a competent force, was, more and ^^J^;^^ 
ed The rule, denominated -the rule of the war oll.;jo, 
u as rev ved^ in an aRected stvle of moderation but in a spint 
of no e r g^rous execution $ The lives, the liberty, the for- 
tunes and the happiness, of the citizens ot the Lnited States 
Engaged in the pursuits of navigation and --merce, were once 
«ore^ubjecttd to the violence and cupidity ot the Brit sh 
"uisers. And, in brief, so grievous, so intoleraoie, had the 
aSL of the' nation become, that the people, --hone mind 
and one voice, called loudly upon their government, lor redress 
'nd protection;!' the congress of the United btates, P^^-tJc^pat" 
W in the fee ings .nd resentments of the time, urged upon 
h? executive magistrate, the necessitv of an immediate de- 
rljan g^-paration f^-om Great Britain^^ same patn- 

. See .-..,. ooi. i^... to ^--:;j,:^^r:;^;;l;!^^i.e"^;h or 

t bee ihc letter ot .Mr. -Y;;^' /° J'^,^„';X,^Mr Ncueun. the secretary of 
^td^:iC:^t.^"Sl:loS iile Bliu^ilaersecrctai; of st.te lor^rei.n 
^'Hee'eis ;i^"cil of the 2.Uhof June. 1S03. and the 17th of i^ugust. 



27 

otic spirit, which had opposed British usurpation in 179S, and 
encountcrv.^d French hostility in 1798, was again pledged, in 
every variety of form, to the maintenance of the national honor 
and independence, during the more arduous trial that arose in 

1805. 

Amidst these scenes of injustice, on the one hand, and of 
reclamation on the other, the American government preserved 
its equanimity and its firmness. It beheld much in the conduct 
of France, and of her ally, Spain, to provoke reprisals. It be- 
held more in the conduct of Great Britain, that led, unavoida- 
bly (as had often been avowed) to the last resort of arms. It 
beheld in the temper of the nation, all that was requisite to 
justify an immediate selection of Great Britain, as the object 
of a declaration of war. And it could not but behold in the 
policy of France, the strongest motive to acquire the United 
States, as an associate in the existing conflict. Yet. these con- 
siderations did not then, more than at any former crisis, sub- 
due the fortitude, or mislead the judgment, of the American 
government; but in perfect consistency with its neutral, as well 
as its pacific, system, it demanded atonement, by remonstrances 
with France and Spain; and it sought the preservation of peace, 
by negotiation with Great Britain. 

It has been shown, that a treaty proposed, emphatically, by 
the British minister, resident at Philadelphia, '*as the means 
of drying up every source of complaint, and irritation, upon the 
head of impressment," was " deemed utterly inadmissible," 
by the American government, because it did not sufHciently 
provide for that object.* It has, also, been shown, that another 
treaty, proposed by the American minister, at London, was 
laid aside, because the British government, while it was willing 
to relinquish, expressly, impressments from American vessels, 
on the high seas, insisted upon an exception, in reference to 
the narrow seas, claimed as a part of the British dominion: and 
experience demonstrated, that, although the spoliations com- 
mitted upon the American commerce, might admit of repara- 
tion, by the payment of a pecuniary equivalent; yet, consulting 
the honor, and the feelings, of the nation, it was impossible to 
receive satisfaction for the cruelties of impressment, by any 
other means, than by an entire discontinuance of the practice. 
When, therefore, the envoys extraordinary were appointex in 
the year 1806 to negotiate with the British government, every 
authority was given, for the purposes of conciliation; nay, an 
act of congress, prohibiting the importation of certain articles 

• See Mr. Liston's letter, to the secretary of state, dated the -tth of February, 
1800; and the letter of Mr. Pickering, secretary of state, to the president of the 
United Sutes, dated the 20th of February, 1800. 



of British manufacture into the United States, was suspended, in 
proof of a triendlv disposition;* but it was declared, that'* the 
suppression of impressment, and the definition of blockades, 
were absolutely indispensable;" and that, "without a provision 
against impressments, no treaty should be concluded." The 
American envoys, accordingly, took care to communicate to the 
British commissioners, the limitations of their powers. Influ- 
enced, at the same time, by a sincere desire to terminate the 
difference? between the two nations; knowing the solicitude of 
their government, to relieve its seafaring citizens from actual 
sufft-rance; listening, Avith confidence, to assurances and expla- 
nations ol the British commissioners, in a sense favorable to 
their wishes; and judging from a state of information, that gave 
no immediate cause to doubt the sufficiency of those assurances 
and explanations; tha envoys, rather than terminate the nego- 
tiation without any arrangement, were willing to rely upon the 
efficacy of a substitute, lor a positive article in the treaty, to be 
submitted to the consideration of their government, as this, ac- 
cording to the declaration of the British commissioners, was 
the only arrangement, they were permitted, at that time, to 
propose, or to allow. The substitute was presented in the form 
of a note from the British commissioners to the American en- 
voys, and contained a pledge, *' that instructions had been 
given, and should be repeated and enforced, for the observance 
of the greatest caution in the impressing of British seamen; 
that the strictest care should be taken to preserve the citizens 
of the United States from any molestation, or injury; and that 
immediate and prompt redress should be afforded, upon any re- 
presentation of injury sustained by them. "f 

Inasmuch, however, as the treaty contained no provision 
against impressment, and it was seen by the government, when 
the treaty was under consideration for ratification, that the 
pledge contained in the sul:)stitute was not complied with, but, 
on the contrary, that the impressments were continued, with 
undiminished violence, in the American seas, so long after the 
alleged date of the instructions, which were to arrest them; 
that the practical inefficacy of the substitute could not be doubt- 
ed by the government here, the ratification of the treaty was 
necessarily declined; and it has since appeared, that after 
a change in the British ministrv had taken place, it was 
declared by the secretnry for foreign affairs, that no engage- 
ments Were entered into, on the part of his majesty, as connect- 
ed with the treaty, except such as appear upon the lace of it.J 

■ ^fc tht id 'if conj;ic.ss. parsed thj l>>tli of April, 1806; and the act sus- 
pending it, passed the lOih of Dccembtr, IbOt'). 

t ^tc the note i)f ihf Briiish commissioners, dated f^th of November, 180G. 
^ficcMr. Car.xi.iig'i. kittr to the Anarican euvoyi;, dated 27ih October, 1^07. 



29 

The American government, however, with unabating solici- 
tude for peace, urged an immediate renewal of the negotiations 
on ihe basis of the abortive treaty, until this course was pe- 
remptorily declared, by the British government, to be *' wholly 
inadmissible."* 

But, independent of the silence of the proposed treaty, upon 
the great topic of American complaint, and of the view which 
has been taken of ihe projected substitute; the contemporaneous 
declaration of the British commissioners, delivered by the 
command of their sovereign, and to which the American envoys 
refused to make themselves a party, or to give the slightest 
degree of sanction, was regarded by the American government, 
as ample cause of rejection. In reference to the French de- 
cree, which had been issued at Berlin, on the 2tst of Novem- 
ber, 1806, it was declared, that if France should carry the 
threais of that decree into execution, and "if neutral nations, 
contrary to all expectation, should acquiesce in such usurpa- 
, tions, his majesty might, probably, be compelled, however re- 
luctantl)-, to retaliate, in his just defence, and to adopt, in regard 
to the commerce of neutral nations with hi.s enemies, the same 
measures, which those nations should have permitted to be en- 
forced, against their commerce with his subjects:" "that his 
majesty could not enter into the stipulations of the present 
treaty, without an explanation from the United States of their 
intentions, or a reservation on the part of his majesty, in the 
case abovemeniioned, if it should ever occur:" and " that, 
without a formal abandonment, or tacit relinquishment, of the 
unjust pretensions of France; or without such conduct and 
assurances upon the part of the United States, as should give 
security to his majesty, that they would not submit to the 
French innovations, in the established system of maritime law, 
his majesty would not consider himself bound, by the present 
signature of his commissioners, to ratify the treaty, or preclud- 
ed from adopting such measures, as might seem necessary, for 
counteracting the designs of the enemy."f 

The reservation of a power, to invalidate a solemn treaty at 
the pleasure of one of the parties, and the menace of inflicting 
punishment upon the United States, for the offences of another 
nation, proved, in the event, a prelude to the scenes of vio- 
lence, which Great Britain was then about to display, and which 
it \yould have been improper for the American negotiators to 
anticipate. For, if a commentary were wanting to explain the 
real design of such conduct, it would be found in the fact, that 

* See the same letter. 

tA^"^J^^ "°'^ '^^ ^^^ British commissioners, dated the 31st of December 
Ui6. See, also, the answer of Messrs. Monroe and Pinkney, to that note. 



80 

within eight days from the date of the treaty, and before it was 
possible for the British government to have known the effect of 
the Berhn decree on the American government; nay, even be- 
fore the American government had itself heard of that decree, 
the dt siruciion of American commerce was commenced by the 
order in council of the 7th of January, 1807, which announced, 
**that no vessel should be permitted to trade from one port to 
another, both which ports should belong to, or be in possession 
of, France, or her allies: or should be so far under their control, 
as that British vessels might not trade freely thereat *" 

During the whole period of this negotiation, which did not 
finally close, until the British government declared, in the month 
of October, 1807, that negotiation was no longer admissible, 
the course pursued by the British squadron, stationed more im- 
mediately on the American coast, was, in the extreme, vexa- 
tious, predatory, and hostile. The territorial jurisdictionof the 
United States, extending, upon the principles of the law of na- 
tions, at least a league over the adjacent ocean, was totally dis- 
regarded and contemned. Vessels employed in the coasting 
trade, or in the business of the pilot and the fisherman, were 
objects of incessant violence; their petty cargoes were plunder- 
ed; and some of their scanty crews were often, either impress- 
ed, or wounded, or killed, by the force of British frigates. Bri- 
tish ships of war hovered, in warlike display, upon the coast; 
blockaded the ports of the United States, so that no vessel 
could enter, or depart, in safety; penetrated the bays and rivers, 
and even anchored in the harbors, of the United States, to exer- 
cise a jurisdiction of impressment; threatened the towns and 
villages with confliigrution; and wantonly discharged musketry, 
as well as cannon, upon the inhabitants ot an open and unpro- 
tected country. The neutrality of the American territory was 
violated on every occasion; and, at last, the American govern- 
ment was doomed to sulfer the greatest indignity, which could 
be offered to a sovereign and independent nation, in the ever 
memorable attack of a British fiftv gun ship, under the counte. 
nance of the Britisli squadron, anchored within the waters of 
the United Slates, upon the frigate Chesapeake, peaceably pro- 
secuting a distant vo) age. 'I'he British government affected, 
from time to time, to disapprove and condemn these outrages; 
but the officers who perpetrated them, were generally applaud- 
ed; if tried, they were acquitted; if removed from the Ameri- 
can station, it was only to be promoted in another station; and if 
atonement were offered, as in the flagrant instance of the fri- 
gate Chesapeake, the atonement was so ungracious in the man- 

•Sce the order in coiincU of January 7, 1807. 



31 

ner, and so tardy in the result, as to betray the want of that con' 
ciliatory spirit, which ought to have characterized it.* 

But the Annierican government, soothing the exasperated spi- 
rit of the people, by a proclamation, which interdicted the en- 
trance of all British armed vessels, into the harbors and waters 
of the United States, f neither commenced hostilities against 
Great Britain; nor sought a defensive alliance with France; 
nor relaxed in its firm, but conciliatory, efforts, to enforce the 
claims of justice, upon the honor of both nations. 

The rival ambition of Great Britain and France, now, how- 
ever, approached the consummation, which, involving the de- 
struction of all neutral rights, upon an avowed principle of ac- 
jion, could not fail to render an actual state of war, compara- 
tively, more safe, and more prosperous, than the imaginary 
state of peace, to which neutrals were reduced. The just and 
impartial conduct of a neutral nation, ceased to be its shield, 
and its safeguard, when the conduct of the belligerent powers 
towards each other, became the only criterion of the law of 
war. The wrong committed by one of the belligerent powers, 
was thus made the signal, for the perpetration of a greater 
wrong by the other; and if the American government com- 
plained to both powers, their answer, although it never denied 
the causes of complaint, invariably retorted an idle and offen- 
sive inquiry, into the priority of their respective aggressions; 
or each demanded a course of resistance, against its antago- 
nist, which was calculated to prostrate the American right of 
self-government, and to coerce the United States, against their 
interest and their policy, into becoming an associate in the war. 
But the American government never did, and never can, ad- 
mit, that a belligerent power, " in taking steps to restrain the 
violence of its enemy* and to retort upon them the evils of 
their own injustice,"! is entitled to disturb, and to destroy, 
the rights of a neutral power, as recognized and established, 
by the law of nations. It was impossible, indeed, that the real 
features of the miscalled retaliatory system, should be long 
masked from the world; when Great Britain, even in her acts 
of professed retaliation, declared, that France was unable to 
execute the hostile denunciations of her decrees;|j and when 

* See the evidence of these facts reported to congress in November, IJ^OG. 

See the documents respecting captain Love, of the Driver; captain Whitby, of 
the Leandcr; and captain 

See, also, the correspondence respecting the frigate Chesapeake, with Mr. 
Canning, at London; with Mr. Rose, at Washington; with Mr. Lrskine,at Wash- 
ington; and with 

t See the proclamation of the 2d of July, 1807. 

i See the oi'ders m council of the 7th of January, K07. 

(j See the orders in council of the 7th of January, 18U7. 



S2 

Great Britain herself, unblushingly, eintered into the same 
commerce with her enemy (through the medium of forgeries, 
perjuries, and licenses) from which she had interdicted unof- 
fending neutrals. 'Jlie pride of naval superiority; and the 
cravings of commercial monopoly; gave, after all, the impulse 
and direction to the councils of the liritish cabini'.t; while the 
vast, although visionary, projects of France, furnished occasions 
and pretexts, for accomplishing the objects of those councils. 

The British minister, resident at Washington, in the year 
ISOl, having distinctly recognized, in the name of his sove- 
reign, the legitimate principles of blockade, the American go- 
vernment received, with some surprise and solicitude, the suc- 
cessive notifications of the 9lh of August, ISOi-, the Sth of 
April, 1806, and, more piirticularly, of the I6th of May, 1806, 
aimouncing, by the last notification, "a blockade of the cuast, 
rivers, and ports, froni the river Jilbe to the port of Erest, both 
inclusive."* In none of the notified instances of blockade, 
were the principles, that had been recognized in ISOi, adopted 
and pursued; and it will be recollected by all Kurope, that nei- 
ther at the time of the notification of the IGth of May, 1806j 
nor at the time of excepting the Elbe and Ems, from the ope- 
ration of that notification ;■]" nor at any time, during the continu- 
ance of the French war, was there an adequate naval force, 
acttially applied by Great Britain, for the purpose of maintain- 
ing a blockade, from the. river Elbe, to the port of Brest. It 
was, then, in the languap;e of the day " a mere paper blockade;'* 
a manifest infraction of the law of nations; and an act of pecu- 
liar injustice to the United States, as the only neutral power, 
against which it could practically operate. Btit whatever may 
have been the sense of the American government on the occa- 
sion; and whatever might be the disposition, to avoid making 
this the ground of an open rupture with Great Britain, the case 
assumed a character of the highest interest, when, independent 
of its own injurious consequences, France, in the Berlin de- 
cree of the 21st of November, ISOO, recited, as a chief cause 
for placing the British islands in a state of blockade, " that 
Great Britain declares blockaded, places before which she has 
not a single vessel of war; and even places, which her united 
forces would be incapable of blockading; such as entire coasts, 
and a whole empire: an unequalled abuse of the right of block- 
ade, that had no other object, than to interrupt the communica- 
tions of xlifferent nations; and to extend the commerce and in- 



• See lord Harrowby's note to Mr. INInnroe, dated the 0th of August, 1804; und 
Mr. I'ox's notes to Mr. Monroe, dated respectively the 8th of April and the ItJth 
of May, IhOG. 

t S.xlord Uowick'snoteto Mr. Monroe, dated the '25th .September, 180G. 



S3 

dustry of England, upon the ruin of those nations."* The 
American government aims not, and never has aimed, at the 
JLisiification, either of Great Britain, or of France, in their ca- 
reer of crimination and recrimination: but it is of some im- 
portance to observe, that if the blockade of May, 1806, was an 
unlawful blockade, and if the right of retaliation arose with the 
first unlawful attack, made by a belligerent power, upon neutral 
rights, Great Britain has yet to answer to mankind, according 
to the rule of her own acknowledgment, for all the calamities 
of the retaliatory warfare. France, whether right, or wrong, 
made the British system of blockade, the foundation of the 
Berlin decree; and JFrance had an equal right with Great Bri- 
tain, to demand from the United States, an opposition to every 
encroachment upon the privileges of the neutral character. It 
is enough, however, on the present occasion, for the American 
g'tvernment, to observe, that it possessed no power to prevent 
the framing of the Berlin decree, and to disclaim any approba- 
tion of its principles, or acquiescence in its operations: tor, it 
neither belonged to Great Britain, nor to France, to prescribe to 
the American government, rhe time, or the mode, or the de- 
gree, of resistance, to the indignities, and the outrages, with 
which each of those nations, in its turn, assailed the United 
Stales. 

But it has been shown, that after the British government pos- 
sessed a knowledge of the existence of the Berlin decree, it au- 
thorized the conclusion of the treaty with the United States, 
which was signed, at London, on the .Slst of December, 1S06, 
reserving to itself a power of annulling the treaty, if France 
did not revoke, or if the United States, as a neutral power, did 
not resist, the obnoxious measure. It has, also, been shown, 
that before Great Britain could possibly ascertain the determi- 
nation of the United States, in relation to the Berlin decree, the 
orders in council of the 7th of January. 1807, were issued, pro- 
fessing to be a retaliation against France, "at a time when the 
fleets of France and her allies were themselves confined within 
their own ports, by the sujierior valor and discipline of the Bri- 
tish navy,"! but operating, in fact, against the United States, as 
a neutral power, to prohil)it their trade " from one port to ano- 
ther, both which ports sh(;uld belong to, or be in the possession 
of, France or her allies, or should be so far under their control, 
as that British vessels might not trade freely thereat."! It re- 
mains, however, to be stated, that it was not until the 12th of 
March, 1807, that the British minister, then residing at Wash- 
ington, communicated to the American government, in the 

* See the Berlin decree of the 21sc of November, 1806. 

t See the order hi council of the 7th of Jaiiuary, 1807. 

o 



34 

name of his sovereign, the orders in council of January, 1807, 
Wi'h an intiitiaiion, that -strongi-r measures would be pursued, 
unUs- i.he United States should resist the operations of ihe 
I? !!;n decree.*' At the moment, the British government was 
rtmi MI. d. "that within the period of those great events, which 
continu d to agitate Europe, instances had occurred, in which 
the commerce of neutral tuitions, more especially of the United 
Staces. held experienced the severest distresses Irom its own or- 
ders snd meiisir.i s, niandesUy ut1authori^ed by the law of na- 
tions;" assur:ii;rt.s were given, *' ihat no culpable acquiescnc» 
On the part ot the Ui ied States would render them accessary 
to the proceedings of one belligerent nation, through their 
rights oi neutrality, against the commerce of its adversary;" 
a;id the right of Gieai Britain to issue such orders, unless as 
ordLis ol blockade, to be enforced ace rding to the law of na- 
tions, v.as utterh deniid.f 

'J'his candid and explicit avowal of the sentiments of the 
American government, u])on an occasion, so novel and impor- 
tant in the history of nations, did not, however, make its just 
impression upon the British cabinet; for, without assigning any 
new provocatinn on the pan of France, and coi-nplaining, mere- 
ly, that neutral powers had not I)een induced to interpose, with 
effect, to obtain a revocation of the Bt^rlin decree, (which, how- 
ever. Great Britain herself had affirmed to be a decree nominaJ 
and inoperative,) the orders in council of the 11th ofNovem- 
ber, 1807, were issued, declaring, " that all the ports and places 
ol France and her allies, or of any other country at war with 
his maje-^ty, and all other pons or places in Europe, from which 
although not at war with his majesty, the British flag was ex- 
cluded, and all ports or places in the colonies belonging to his 
m.ijesty'o enemies, should, liom thenceforth, be suijject to the 
same restrictions, in point of trade and navig uion, as if the 
same were actually blockaded by his majesty's naval forces, in 
the most htrict and ligorous manner:'^ that ''all trade in articles 
wnich were rhe produce or manufacture of the said countries or 
colonies, should be deemerl and c )nsideredto be unlawful:" but 
that neutral vessels should still be permitted to trade with 
France Jroin certain free pons, or thr'Ugh ports and jjlaces of 
the British dominions. J To accept the lawful enjoyment of a 
right, as the grant of a superior; to prosecute a lawful com- 
merce, under the forms of favor and indulgence; and to pay a 

* See Mr. Erskine's letter to the secretary of state, dated the 12th of March 
lo07 

t See the secretary of stafe's letter to Mr ivskiiie, dated the 20th of March, 

I bo?. 

t '^^ee the orders in councd of the 11th of iSuveinbcr, 180Z. 



35 

tribute to Great Britain, for the privileges of a lawful transit 
on the ocean; were concessions, which Great Britain was dis- 
posed, insidiously, to exact, by an appeal to 'ih'.- cupidity of in- 
dividuals, but which the United States could never yield; con- 
sistently with the independence and the sovereignty of the na- 
tion. The orders in council were, therefore, altered, in this 
respect, at a sub^.tquent period;* but the general interdict of 
neutral commerce, applying more especially to American com- 
merce, was obstinatel) maintained, against all the force (*f rea- 
son, of remonstrance, and of protestation, employed b) the 
American government, when the subject was presented to its 
consideration, by the JB'-itish minister residing at Washington. 
The fact assumed as the basis of the orders in council, was 
unequivocally disowned; and it was demonstrited. tbit o tar 
from its being true, " that the United States had a q'l.es.ed in 
an illegal operation of the Berlin decree, it was n.;i even '.rue, 
that at the date of the Brit sh orders of the 11th of November, 
1807, a single application of that decree to the commerce of the 
United States, on the high seas, could have been known to the 
British government;" while the British government had been 
officially informed by the American minister at London, " that 
explanations, uncontradicted by any overt act, had been given 
to the American minister at Paris which justified a reliance, 
that the French decree would not be put in force against the 
United States. "f 

The British orders of the 11th of November, 1807, were 
quickly followed by the French decree of Milan, dated the 17th 
of December, 1S07, " which was said to be resorted to, only 
in just retaliation of the barbarous system adopted by England," 
and in which the denationalizing tendencv of the orders, is 
made the foundation of a declaration in the decree, "that every 
ship, to whatever nation it might belong, that should have sub- 
mitted to be searched by an English ship, or to a voyage to 
England, or should have paid an)' tax whatsoever to the Eng- 
lish government, was thereby, and for that alone, declar-.d to be 
denationalized, to have forfeited the protection of its sover^ ign, 
and to have become English property, subject to cai)tur' , us 
good and lawful prize: that the British ishmds were p! > ed n a 
state of blockade, both by sea and land; and every shin, of 
whatever nation, or whatever the nature of its cargo might be, 
that sails from the ports of England, or those of the English 
colonies, and of the countries occupied b\ Eiiglishti' ..- .uid 

* See Mr. Canning's letter to Mr. Pinkney, 2: ■a February, laoS. 
f See Mr Erskine's letter to the secretary ■ f state, da ed the '■■iZu of eovua- 
ry, IbOb; and the answer of the secretary of state, dated the 25ib of Marcn, 1»08 



36 

and proceeding to England, or to the English colonies, or to 
countries occupied by English troops, should be good and law- 
ful prize: but that the provisions of the decree should be abro- 
gated and null, in fact, as soon as the English should abide again 
by the i> inciples oi the law of nations, which are, also, the 
principles of justice and honor."* In opposition, however, to 
the Milan decree, as well as to the Berlin decree, the American 
government strenuously and unceasingly employed every in- 
strument, except the instruments of war. It acted precisely 
towards France, as it acted towards Great Britain, on similar 
occasions; but France remained, tor a time, as insensible to the 
claims of justice and honor, as (ireat Britain; each imitating the 
other, in extravagance of pretension, and in obstinacy ot pur- 
pose. 

When the American government received intelligence, that 
the orders of the 11th of November, 1807, had been under the 
consideration of the British cabinet, and were actually prepar- 
ed tor promulgation, it was anticipated, that France, in a zeal- 
ous prosecution of the retaliatory warfare, would soon produce 
an act oi, at least, equal injustice and hostility. The crisis ex- 
isted, therefore, at which the United States were compelled tc* 
decide, either to withdraw their seafaring citizens, and their 
commercial wealth, from the ocean, or to leave the interests of 
the mariner and the merchant exposed to certain destruction; or 
to engag',' in open and active war, for the protection and defence 
ot those interests. The principles and the habits of the Ame- 
rican government, were still disposed to neutrality and peace. In 
weighing the nature and the amount of the aggressions, which 
had been perpetrated, or which were threatened, if there were 
any preponderance to determine the balance, against one of the 
belligerent powers, rather than the other, as the object of a de- 
claiaiion of war; it was against Great Britain, at least, upon the 
vital interest of impressment, and the obvious superiority of her 
naval means of anno)ance. The French decrees were, indeed, 
as obnoxious in their formation and design as the British or* 
ders; but the government of France claimed and exercised no 
right ot impressment; and the maritime spoliations of F^-ance, 
were, comparatively, restricted, not only by her own weakness 
on the ocean, but by the constant and pervading vigilance of the 
tleets ot her enemy. The difficulty of selection; the indiscre- 
tion of encountering, at once, both of the offending powers; and, 
above all, the hope of an early return of justice, under the dis- 
pensations of the ancient public law, prevailed in the councils 
of the American government; and it was resolved to attempt 

* Seethe Milan decree of the ITth of Dectn;ber, 1S07. 



37 



the preservation of its neutrality and its peace; of its citizens, 
and its resources; by a voluntary suspension of the commerce 
and navigation of the United States. It is true, that for the 
ftiinor outrages committed, under the pretext of the rule of 
war of 1756, the citizens of every denomination had demanded 
from their government, in the year 1805, protection and redress; 
it is true, thac for the unparalleled enormities of the year 1807, 
the citizens of every denomination again demanded from their 
government protection and redress: but it is, also, a truth, con- 
clusively established by every manifestation of the sense of the 
American people, as well as of their government, that any ho- 
norable means of protection and redress, were preferred to the 
last resort of arms. The American government might honor- 
ably retire, for a time, from the scene of conflict and collision; 
but it could no lotigvrr, with honor, permit its flag to be insulted, 
its citizens to be enslaved, and its property to be plundered, oa 
the highway of n;tlions. 

Under these impressions, the restrictive system of the United 
States was introduced. In Dtcember, 1807, an embargo was 
imposed upon all American vessels and merchandise;* on prin- 
ciples similar to those, which originated and regulated the em- 
bargo law, authorized to be laid by the president of the 
United States, in the year 1794: but soon afterwards, in the 
genuine sjjirit of the policy, that prescribed the measure, it was 
declared by law, "that in the event of such peace, or suspension 
ot hostilities, between the belligerent powers of Europe, or 
such changes in their measures affecting neutral commerce, as 
might render that of the United States safe, in the judgment of 
the president of the United States, he was authorized to sus- 
pend the embargo, in whole, or in part."t The pressure of the 
embargo was thought, however, so severe upon every part of 
the community, that the American government, notwithstand- 
ing the neutral character of the measure, determined upon 
some relaxation; and, accordingly, the em.bargo being raised, 
as to all other nations, a system of non-intercourse and non-im- 
portation was substituted in March, 1809, as to Great Britain 
and France, which prohibited all voyages to the Briii.h or 
French dominions, and all trade in articles of British or French 
product or manufacture. J But still adhering to the neutral and 
pacific policy of the government, it was declared, "that the 
president of the United States should be authorized, in case 
either France, or Great Britain, should so revoke, or modify, 

* See the act of congress, passed the 22d of December, 1807. " 

fSee the act of congress, passed the 22d of April, 1808 

\ See the act of congress, passed the tirstday of March. 1809. 



S8 

her edicts, as t^at tbey should cease to violate the neutral com« 
merce of the United States, to declare the same bv proclama- 
tion; after which the trade of the United States might be re- 
newed with the nation so doing."* "^l^hese appeals to the jus- 
tice and the interests of the belligerent powers proving ineffec- 
tual; and the necessities of the country increasing, it was finally 
resolved, bv the American envernment, to take the hazards of 
a war; to revoke its restrictive system; and to exclude British 
and French arnit-d vessels from the harbors and waters of the 
United States; but, again, emphaticallv to announce, " that in 
case cither Great Br'iain or France should, before the 3d of 
March, 1811, so revoke, or modify, her edicts, as that they 
should cease to violate the neutral commerce of the United 
States; and if the other nation should not, within three months 
thereafter, so revoke, or modify, her edicts, in like manner," 
the provisions of the non-intercourse and non- importation law 
should, at the expiration of three months, be revived against 
the nation refusing, or neglecting, to revoke, or modify, its 
edict. t 

In the course, which the American government had hitherto 
pursued, relative to the belligerent orders and decrees, the can- 
did foreigner, as well as the patriotic citizen, may perceive an 
extreme solicitude, for the preservation of peace; but, in the 
publicity, and impartiality, of the overture, that was thua 
spread before the belligerent powers, it is impossible, that any 
indication should be found, of foreign influence or control. 
The overture was urged upon both nations for acceptance, at 
the same time, and in the same manner; nor was an intimation 
withheld, from either of them, that " it might be regarded by 
the belligerent first accepting it. as a uromise to itself, and a 
warning to its enemv "| Kath of the nations, from the com- 
mencement of the retaliatory system, acknowledged, that its 
measures were violations of public law; and each pledged itself 
to retract them, whenever the other should set the example-!! 
Although the American government, therefore, persisted in its 
remonstrances against the origmal transgressions, without re- 
gard to the questioH of their priority, it embraced, with eager- 
ness, everv hope of reconciling the interests of the rival powers, 
with a performance of the dut\ which they owed to the neutral 
character of the United States: and when the British m'inister, 



• See the 11 th section of the las: cited act of congress. 

I See the act of congress, passed the 1st of May, 16IU. 

\ Seethe correspoiitieiice between the secretary of state, and the American 
tniriisters at London ajid Pans. 

jj See the document* laid before congress from time to time by the president 
%iKi printed. 



39 

residing at "Washington, in the year 1809, affirmed, in terms 33 
plain, and as positive, as language could supply, ''that he was 
authorized t(j declare, that his UritanHic majesty's ord^^rs in 
council of January and November, 1S07. will have been with- 
drawn, as respects the United States on the 10th dav of June, 
1S09," the president of the United States hastened, with ap- 
proved liberality, to accept the declaration as conclusive evi- 
dence, that the promised fact would exist, at the stipulated pe- 
riod; and, b}' an immediate proclamation, he announced, "that 
after the 10 h day of June next, the trade of the United States 
with Great Britain, as suspended bv the non-intercourse law, 
and by the acts of congress laying and enforcing an embargo, 
might be renewed "* The American gcH'ernment neither 
asked, nor received, from the British minister, an exemplifica- 
ti(m of his powers; an inspection of his instructions; nor the 
solemnitv of an order in council: but executed the compact, on 
the piirtofthe United States, in all the sincerity of its own 
intentions; and in all the confidence, which the official act of 
the representative of his Britannic majestv, was calculated to 
inspire. The act, and the authority fur the act, were, however, 
disavowed by Great Britain; and an attempt was made, by 
the successor of Mr. Erskine, tiirough the aid of insinuations, 
which were indignantly repulsed, to justify the British rejec- 
tion of the treaty of 1S09, by referring to the American rejection 
of the treaty of 1SU6; forgetful of the essential points of differ- 
ence, that the British government, on the former occasion, had 
been explicitly apprized by the American negotiators of their 
deiect ot power; and that the execution of the projected treaty 
had not, on either side, been commenced.^ 

After this abortive attempt to obtain a just and honorable re- 
vocation of the British orders in council, the United States 
were again invited to indulge the hope of safety and tranquilli- 
ty, when the minister of France announced to the American 
minister at Paris, that, in consideration of the act of the first of 
May, 1809, by which the congress of the United Statesmen- 
gaged to oppose itself to that one of the belligerent powers, 
which should refuse to acknowledge the rights of neutrals, he 
was authorized to declare, that the decrees of Berlin and Sli- 
lan were revoked, and that after the 1st of November. ISIO, 
they would cease to have effect; it being understood, that in 
consequence of that declaration, the English should revoicf. 

* See the corresp-i^udence bervveen Mr. Eiskme, the Britiih minister, and the 
secretary of state, on the 17th, iSth, and 19ihof April, loo9; and the president's 
proclurjiation of the last date. 

t Sre the correspondence between thf secretirj- of sia'e. and Mr. J-ic'^!;^r.. 
the British rr.inisier. 



iO 

their orders in council, and renounce the new principles of 
blockade-, which thev had wished to establish; or that the Unit- 
ed States, conformably to the act of congress, should cause their 
rights to be respected by the English "^ This declaration, de- 
livered by the olHcial organ of the government of France, and 
in the presence, as it were, of the French sovereign, was of the 
highest authority, according to all the rules of diplomatic in- 
tercourse; and, certainly, far 'Jurpassed any claim of credence, 
which was possessed by die British minister, residing at Wash- 
ington, when the arrangement of the year 1809, was accepted 
and executed by the American governmi^nt. The president of 
the United Statco, therefore, owed to the consistency of his 
own character, and to the dictates of a sincere impartiality, a 
prompt acceptance of the French overture: and, accordingly, 
the authoritative promise, that the fact should exist, at the sti- 
pulated period, being again admitted as conclusive evidence of 
its existence, a proclamation was issued on the 2d of November, 
1810, announcing, " that the edicts of France had been so re- 
voked, as that they ceased, on the 1st day of the same month, 
to violate the neutral commerce of the United States; and that 
all the restrictions imposed by the act of congress, should then 
cease and be discontinued, in relation to F' ance and her depen- 
dencies. "f That France, from this epoch, refrained from all 
aggressions, on the high seas, or even in her own ports, upon 
the persons and the property of the citizens of the United States, 
never was asserted; but, on the contrarv, her violence and her 
spoliations have been unceasing causes of complaint. These 
subsccjuent injuries, constituting a part of the existing reclama- 
tions of the United States, were always, however, disavowed by 
the French government; whilst the repeal of the Berlin and Mi- 
lan decree !kis, on every occasion, been affirmed; insomuch 
that Great Britain herself was, at last, com[)elled to yield to the 
evidence of the fact. 

On the i.'.xpiration of three months, from the date of the pre- 
sident's prochtmation, the non-intercourse and non-importation 
law was, of course, to be re\ived against Great Britain, unless, 
tluring that period, her oniers in council, should be revoked, 
I'he subject was, therefore, most anxiously, and most steadily, 
pressed upon the justice, and the magnanimity, of the British 
government; and even when the hope of success expired, by 
ihie lapse of the period prescribed in one act of congress, the 
United St;»tes opened the door of reconciliation by another act, 
which, in the }ear iSll, again [irovidcd, that in case, at any 

* See tlie ilul<c deCaJoru'slctier to Mr. Armsiroiig, dated theSth of August, 
IhlJ 

] Set the j/rcfcideut's proclamuiion, oK the ~d of Novcmbci', ISIO. 



41 

time, " Great Britain should so revoke or modify her edicts, as 
that they shall cease to violate the neutral commerce of the 
United States; the president of the United States ^should de- 
clare the fact by proclamation; and that the restrictions, previ- 
ously imposed, should, from the date of such proclamation, 
cease and he discontinued."* But, unhappilv, every appeal to 
the justice and magnanimity of Great Briiain was now, as here- 
tofore, fruitless and forlorn. She had, at this epoch, impress- 
ed from the crews of American merchant vessels, peaceably na- 
vigating the high seas, not less than six thousand mariners, who 
claimed to be citizens of the U ated States, and who were de- 
nied all opportunity to verify rheir claims. She had seized and 
confiscated the commercial property of American citizens, to 
an incalculable amount. She had united in the enormities of 
France, to declare a great proportion of the terraqueous globe in 
a state of blockade; chasing the American merchant flag effectu- 
ally irom the ocean. She had contemptuously disregarded the 
neutrality of the American territory, and the jurisdiction of the 
American laws, within the waters and harbors of the United 
States. She was enjoying the emoluments of a surreptitious 
trade, stained with every species of fraud and corruption, 
which gave to the belligerent powers, the advantages of peace, 
while the neutral powers were involved in the evils of war. 
She had, in short, usurped and exercised, on the water, a tv- 
ranny similar to that, which her great antagonist had usurped 
and exercised upon the land. And, amidst all these proofs of 
ambition, and avarice, she demanded, that the victims of her 
usurpations and her violence, should revere her as the sole de- 
fender of the rights and liberties of mankind. 

When, therefore, Great Britain, in manifest violation of her 
solemn promises, refused to follow the example of France, by 
the repeal of her orders in council, the American government 
was compelled to contemplate a resort to aims, as the only re- 
maining course to be pursued, for its honor, its independence, 
and its safety. Whatever depended upon the United States 
themselves, the United States had performed, for the preserva- 
tion^of peace, in resistance of the French decrees, as well as of 
the British orders. AVhat had been required from Ft ance, in 
its relation to the neutral character of the United States, France 
had performed, by the revocation of iis Berlin and Milan de- 
crees. But what depended upon Great Britain, for the pur- 
poses ot justice, in the repeal of her orders in council, was 
withheld; and new evasions were sought, when the old were 
exhausted. It was, at one time, alleged, that satisfactory proof 

> 

* See the act of congress, passed the 'M of March, JSll. 



42 

was not afforded, that France had repealed her decrees against 
the commerce of the United States; as if such proof alone were 
wanting, to ensure the performance of the British promise.^ 
At another time, it was insisted, that the repeal of the French 
decrees, in their operation against the United States, in order 
to authorize a demand for the performance of the British pro. 
mise, must be total, applying equally to their internal, and their 
external effects; as if the United States had either the right, or 
the power, to impose upon France the law of her domestic in- 
stitutions. f And it was, finally, insisted, in a despatch Irotv. 
lord Castlereagh, to the British minister, residing at Washing- 
ton, in the year 1812, which was officially communicated to the 
American government, " that the decrees of Berlin and Milan 
must not be repealed singly and specially, in relation to the 
United States; but must be repealed, also, as to all other neutral 
nations; and that in no less extent of a repeal of the French de- 
crees, had the British government ever pledged itself to repeal 
the orders in council;":^ as if it were incumbent on the United 
States, not only to assert her own rights, but to become the co- 
adjutor of the British government, in a gratuitous assertion oi 
the rights of all other nations. 

The congress of the United States could pause no longer. 
Under a deep and afflicting sense of the national wrongs, and 
the national resentments; while they " postponed definitive 
measures with respect to France, in the expectation that the re- 
sult of unclosed discussions, between the American minister at 
Paris, and the PVench government, would speedily enable them 
to decide, with greater advantage, on the course due to the 
rights, the interests, and the honor, of the country ;"|) they pro- 
nounced a deliberate and solemn declaration of war, between 
Great Britain> and the United States, on the 18th of June, 
1812. 

But, it is in the face of all the facts, which have been dis- 
played, in the present narrative, that the prince regent, by his 
declaration of January, 1813, describes the United States as the 
aggressor in the war. If the act of declaring war, constitutes, 
in all cases, the act of original aggression, the United States 
must submit to the severity of the reproach: but it the act ol 
declaring war may be more truly considered, as the result of 

• See the correspondence between Mr. Piiikney and the British government. 
■\ See the letters of Mr. Erskine. 

I See the correspondence between the secretary of state, and Mr. Foster, the 
British minister, in June, 1?<12 

II See the president's message of the 1st of June, 1812; and the report of the 
:o:v.mi'.tee of foreir' f Vi''->n>. rr, v/li(ir>i I'v mcijuge w*s referred. 



long suffering, and necessan- self-defence, the American go- 
vernment will stand acquitted, in the sight of Heaven, and of 
the world. Have the United States, then*, enslaved the subjects, 
confiscated the property, prostrated the commerce, insulted the 
flag, or violated the territorial sovereignty, of. Great Britain? 
No: but, in all these respects, the United States had suffered, for 
a long period of years, previously to the declaration of war, 
the contumely and outrage of the British government. It has 
been said, too, as an aggravation of the imputed aggression, 
that the United States chose a period, for their declaration of 
war, when Great Britain was struggling for her own existence, 
against a power, which threatened to overthrow the indepen- 
dence of all Europe; but it might be more truly said, that the 
United States, not acting upon choice, bat upon compulsion, 
delayed the declaration of war, until the persecutions of Great 
Britain had rendered further delay destructive and disgraceful. 
Great Britain had converted the commercial scenes of American 
opulence and prosperity, into scenes of comparative poverty 
and distress; she had brought the existence of the United States, 
as an independent nation, into question; and, surely, it must 
have been indifferent to the United States, whether they ceased 
to exist as an independent nation, by her conduct, while she pro- 
fessed friendship, or by her conduct, when she avowed enmity 
and revenge. Nor is it true, that the existence of Great Bri- 
tain was in danger, at the epoch of the declaration of war. The 
American government uniformly entertained an opposite opini- 
on; and, at all times, saw more to apprehend for the United 
States, from her maritime power, than from the territorial pow- 
er of her enemy. The event has justified the opinion, ancl the 
apprehension. But what the United States asked, as essential 
to their welfare, and even as beneficial to the allies of Great 
Britain, in the European war, Great Britain, it is manifest, 
might have granted, without impairing the resources of 
her own strength, or the splendor ot her own sovereignty; 
for, her orders in council have been since revoked; not, 
it is true, as the performance of her promise, to follow, in 
this respect, the example of France, since she finally rested the 
obligation of that promise, upon a repeal of the French de- 
crees, as to all nations; and the repeal was only as to the Unit- 
ed States; nor as an act of national justice towards the United 
States: but, simply, as an act of domestic policy, for the special 
advantage of her own people. 

The British government has, also, described the war, as a 
war of aggrandizement and conquest, on the part of the United 
States; but, where is the foundation for the charge? While the 
American government employed every means, to dissuade the 



4i. 

Indians, even those who lived within the territory, and were 
supplied by the bounty, of the United States, from taking any 
part in the war,* the proots were irresistible, that the enemy 
pursued a very different course;"!* ^"^ that every precaution 
would be necessary, to prevent the effects of an offensive alli- 
ance, between the British troops and the savages, throughout 
the northern frontier of the United States. The military occu- 
pation of Upper Canada was, therefore, deemed indispensable 
to the safety of that frontier, in the earliest movements of the 
war, independent of all views of extending the territorial boun- 
dary of the United States. But, when war was declared, in 
resentment for injuries, which had been suffered upon the At- 
lantic, what principle of public law, what modification of civil- 
ized warfare, imposed upon the United States, the duty of ab- 
staining from the invasion of the Canadas? It was there alone, 
that the United States could place themselves upon an equal 
footing of military force with Great Britain; and it was there, 
that they might reasonably encourage the hope of being able, 
in the prosecution of a lawful retaliation, "to restrain the vio- 
lence of the enemy, and to retort upon him, the evils of his own 
injustice," The proclamations issued by the American com- 
manders, on entering Upper Canada, have, hov/ever, been ad- 
duced by the British negotiators at Ghent, as the proofs of a 
spirit of ambition and aggrandizement, on the part of their go- 
vernment In truth, the proclamations were not only unautho- 
rized and disapproved, but were infractions of the positive in- 
structions, which had been given, for the conduct of the war in 
Canada. A"^ hen the general, commanding the north western 
army of the Un'ted States, received, on the 2ith of June, 1812, 
his first authority to commence offensive operations, he was 
especially told, that "he must not consider himself authorized 
to pledge the government to the inhabitants of Canada, further 
than assurances of protection in their persons, property, and 
rights." And on the ensuing 1st of August, it was emphatically 
declared to him, " that it had become necessary, that he should 
not lose sight of the instructions of the 2ith of June, as any 
pledge beyond that, was incompatible with the views of the 
government."! Such was the nature of the charge of Ameri- 
can ambition and aggrandizement, and such the evidence to 
support it. 

The prince regent has, however, endeavored to add, to 

* See the proceedings at the councils, held with the Indians, during the expe- 
dition under brigadier general Hull; and the talk delivered by the president of the 
United States, to the Six Na. ions, at Washington, on the 8th ol April, 1813. 

t See the documents laid before congress on the 13th June, 1812. 

\ See the letter from the secretary ot the war department, to brigadier general 
Hull, dated the 2ith of June, and the 1st pf August, 1812. 



i6 

these unfounded accusations, a stigma, at which the pride of 
the Ameiicaa government revolts. Listening to the fabrica- 
tions of British emissaries; gathering scandals from the abuses 
of a free press; and misled, perhaps, by the asperities of a party 
spirit, common to all free governments; he affects to trace the 
origin of the war to " a marked partiality, in palliating and 
assisting the aggressive tyranny of France;" and " to the pre- 
valence of such councils, as associated the United States, in 
policy, with the government of that nation."* The conduct of 
the American government is now open to every scrutiny; and 
its vindication is inseparable from a knowledge of the facts. 
All the world must be sensible, indeed, that neither in the ge- 
neral policy of the late ruler of France, nor in his particular 
treatment of the United States, could there exist any political, 
or rational foundation, for the svmpathies and associations, 
overt, or clandestine, which have been rudely and unfairly sug- 
gested. It is equally obvious, that nothing short of the ag- 
gressive tyranny, exercised by Great Britain towards the United 
States, could have counteracted and controlled, those tendencies 
to peace and amity, which derived their impulse, from natural 
and social causes; combining the aftections and interests of the 
two nations. The American government, faithful to that prin- 
ciple of public law, which acknowledges the authority of all 
governments established de facto; and conforming its practice, 
in this respect, to the example of Europe; has never contested 
the validity of the governments successively established in 
France; nor refrained from that intercourse with either of 
them, which the just interests of the United States required. 
But the British cabinet is challenged to produce, from the re- 
cesses of its secret, or of its public, archives, a single instance 
ot unworthy concessions, or of political alliance and combina- 
tion, throughout the intercourse of the United States, with the 
revolutionary rulers of France. Was it the influence of French 
councils, that induced the American government to resist the 
pretensions of France, in 1793, and to encounter her hostilities 
in 1798? that led to the ratification of the British treaty in 1795; 
to the British negotiation in 1805, and to the convention with 
the British minister in 1809? that dictated the impartial over- 
tures, v/hich were made to Great Britain, as well as to France, 
during the whole period of the restrictive system? that produ- 
ced the determination to avoid making any treaty, even a treaty 
of commerce, with France, until the outrage of the Rambouillet 
decree was repaired?j" that sanctioned the repeated and urgent 

* See the British declaration, of the 10th of January, 1S13. 
t Seethe instructions from the secretary of state to the American minister at 
Parifj, dated the 29th May, lbl3. 



46 

effort? of the American government, to put an end to the war, 
almost as soon as it was declared? or that, finally, prompted 
the explicit communication, which, in pursuance of instruc- 
tions, was made by the American minister, at St. Petersburgh, 
to the court of Russia, stating, "that the principal subjects of 
discussion, which had long been subsisting between the United 
States and France, remained unsettled; that there was no im- 
mediate prospect, that there would be a satisfactory settlement 
of them; but that, whatever the event, in that respect, might 
be, it was not the intention of the government of the United 
States, toeuterinto any more intimate connexions v.'ith France; 
that the government of the United States did not anticipate any 
event M-hatever, that could produce that effect; and that the 
American minister was the more happy to find himself autho- 
rized by his government to avow this intention, as different 
representations of their views had been widely circulated, a^ 
well in Europe, as in America."* But, while every act of the 
American government thus falsifies the charge of a subserviency 
to the policy of France, it may be justly remarked, that of all 
the governments, maintaining a necessary relation and inter- 
course with that nation, from the commencement, to the recent 
termination, of the revolutionary establishments, it has happen- 
ed, that the government of the United States has least exhibited 
marks of conde-^cension and concession to the successive ru- 
lers. It is for Great Britain, more particularly, as an accuser, 
to examine and explain the consistency of the reproaches, 
which she has uttered against the United States, with the 
course of her own conduct; with her repeated negotiations, 
during the republican, as well as during the imperial, sway of 
France; with her solicitude to make and to propose treaties; 
with her interchange of commercial benefits, so irreconcilable 
to a state of war, v;ith the almost triumphant entry of a French 
embassador into her capital, amidst the acclamations of the 
populace; and v;ith the prosecution, instituted, by the orders 
of the king of Great Britain himself, in the highest court of cri- 
minal jurisdiction in his kingdom, to punish the printer of a 
gazette, for publishing a libel on the conduct and character of 
the late ruler of France! Y»'hatever may be the source of these 
symptoms, hov/ever they may indicate a sul>servient policy, 
such symptoms have never occurred in the United States, 
throughout the imperial government of France. 

The conduct of the United States, from the moment of de- 
claring the war, will serve, as well as their previous conduct, 
to rescue them from the unjust reproaches of Great Britam. 



• See Mr. Monroe's letter to Mr. Adams, daied the 1st of July, 1812; and Mr. 
*.darr.s' letter to Mr Monroe, dated the Ihhof December, 18U. 



i7 

When war was declared, the orders in council had been main- 
tained, with inexorable hostility, until a thousand American 
vessels and their cargoes had been seized and confiscated, un- 
der their ojieration; the British minister at Washington had, 
with peculiar solemnity, announced that the orders would not 
be repealed, but upon conditions, which the American govern- 
ment had not the right, nor the power, to fulfil; and the Euro- 
pean war, which had raged, with little intermission, for twenty 
years, threatened an indefinite continuance. Under these cir- 
cumstances, a repeal of the orders, and a cessation of the inju- 
ries, which they produced, were events beyond all rational 
anticipation. It appears, however, that the orders, under the 
influence of a parliamentary inquiry into their effects upon the 
trade and manufactures of Great Britain, were provisionally 
repealed on the 23d of June, 1812, a few days subsequent to 
the American declaration of war. If this repeal had been 
made known to the United States, before their resort to arms, 
the repeal would have arrested it; and that cause of war being 
removed, the other essential cause, the practice of impress- 
ment, would have been the subject of renewed negotiation, 
under the auspicious influence of a partial, yet important, act 
of reconciliation. But the declaration of war, having announ- 
ced the practice of impressment, as a principal cause, peace 
could only be the result of an express abandonment of the 
practice; of a suspension of the practice, for the purposes of 
negotiation; or of a cessation of actual sufferance, in conse- 
quence of a pacification In Europe, which would deprive Great 
Britain of every motive for continuing the practice. 

Hence, when early intimations were given, from Halifax, 
and from Canada, of a disposition, on the part of the local 
authorities, to enter into an armistice, the power of those au- 
thorities was so doubtful, the objects of the armistice were so 
limited, and the immediate advantages of the measure, were so 
entirely on the side of the enemy, that the American govern- 
ment could not, consistently with its duty, embrace the propo- 
sitions.* Bat some hope of an amicable adjustment was in- 
spired, when a communication was reteived from admiral 
Warren, in September, 1812, stating that he was commanded 
by his government, to propose, on the one hand, "that the 
government of the United States should, instantly recall their 
letters of marque and reprisal against British ships, together 
with all orders and instructions for any acts of hostility what- 

* See the letters from the department of state to Mr. Russell, dated 9th and 
10th August, 1812, and Mr. Graham's memorandum of a conversation with Mr. 
Baker, the British secretary of legation, enclosed in the last letter. See, also. 
Mr, Monroe's letter to Mr, Russel, dated the iilst cl Augtist. 181'i. 



48 

ever against the territories of his majesty, or the persons or 
property of his subjects;" and to promise, on the other hand, if 
the American government acquiesced in the preceding pro- 
position, that instructions should be issued to the British squa- 
drons, to discontinue hostilities against the United States and 
their citizens. This overture, however, was subject to a further 
qualification, "that should the American government accede 
to the proposal for terminating hostilities, the British admiral 
was authorized to arrange with the American government, as 
to the revocation of the laws, which interdict the commerce 
and ships of war of Great Britain from the harbors and waters 
of the United States; but that in default of such revocation 
within the reasonable period to be agreed upon, the orders in 
council would be revived."* The American government, at 
once, expressed a disposition to embrace the general proposition 
for a cessation of hostilities, with a view to negotiation; de- 
clared that no peace could be durable, unless the essential object 
of impressment was adjusted; and offered, as a basis of the 
adjustment, to prohibit the employment of British subjects in 
the naval or commercial service of the United States: but ad- 
hering to its determination of obtaining a relief from actual 
sufferance, the suspension of the practice of impressment pend- 
ing the proposed armistice, was deemed a necessary conse- 
quence; for " it could not be presumed, while the parties were 
engaged in a negotiation to adjust amicably this important 
difference, that the United States would admit the right, or 
acquiesce in the practice, of the opposite party; or that Great 
Britain would be unwilling to restrain her cruisers from a 
practice, which would have the strongest effect to defeat the 
negotiation."! So just, so reasonable, so indispensable, a pre- 
liminary, without which the citizens of the United States, navi- 
gating the high seas, would not be placed, by the armistice, on 
an equal footing with the subjects of Great Britain, admiral 
'Warren was not authorized to accept; and the effort at an ami- 
cable adjustment, through that channel, was necessarily abortive. 
But long before the overture of the British admiral was 
made, (a few days, indeed, after the declaration of war,) the 
reluctance with which the United States had resorted to arms, 
was manifested by the steps taken, to arrest the progress of 
hostilities, and to hasten a restoration of peace. On the 2Glh 
of June, 1812, the American charge d'affaires, at London, was 
instructed to make the proposal of an armistice to the British 



• See the letter of admiral Warren, to the secretary of state, dated at Halifax, 
the 20ih ol SeiHcniber, ISl/. 

■j- See the letter of Mr. Monroe, to admiral Warren, dated the 27th of Octo- 
ber, \V>Vl. 



i>9 

government, which might lead to an adjustment of all differ* 
ences, on the single condition, in the event of the orders in coun* 
cil being repealed, that instructions should be issued, suspend- 
ing the practice of impressment duringthe armistice. This pro- 
posal was soon followed by another, admitting, instead of posi- 
tive instructions, an informal understanding between the two 
governments on the subject.* But both of these proposals were 
unhappily rejected. "j" And when a third, which seemed to leave 
no plea for hesitation, as it required no other preliminary, than 
that the American minister, at London, should find in the Bri- 
tish government, a sincere disposition to accommodate the dif- 
ference, relative to impressment, on fair conditions, was evaded, / 
it was obvious, that neither a desire of peace, nor a spirit of 
conciliation, influenced the councils of Great Britain. / 

Under these circumstances, the American government ha/ 
no choice, but to invigorate the war; and yet it has never losi 
sight of the object of all just wars, a just peace. The emperor 
of Russia having offered his mediation, to accomplish that ob- 
ject, it was instantly and cordially accepted, by the American 
government;^ but it was peremptorily rejected by the British 
government. The emperor, in his benevolence, repeated his 
invitation: the British government again rejected it. At last, 
however, Great Britain, sensible of the reproach, to which 
such conduct would expose her throughout Kurope, offered to 
the American government a direct negotiation for peace, and 
the offer was promptly cmbracedj with perfect confidence, 
that the British government would be equally prompt, in giving 
effect to its own proposal. But such was not the desigUi or 
the course, of that government. The American envoys were 
immediately appointed, and arrived at Gottenburgh, the de- 
stined scene of negotiation, on the 11th of April, 1814, as soon 
as the season admitted. The British government, though 
regularly informed, that no time would be lost on the part of 
the United States, suspended the appointment of its envoys, 
until the actual arrival of the American envoys should be for- 
mally communicated. This pretension, however novel and 
inauspicious, was not permitted to obstruct the path to peace. 
The British government next proposed to transfer the negotia- 
tion from Gottenburgh to Ghent. This change, also, notwith- 

* See the letters from the secretary of state, to Mr. Russeil, dated the 26th of 
June, and 2rth of July, \i>l2. 

J See the correspondence between Mr. Russell, and lord Castlereagh, dated 
August and September, 161;^; and Mr. Russell's letters to the secretary of state, 
dated September, IS 1 2. 

i See the correspondence between Mr. Monroe and Mr. Daschkoft", in Match, 
1813. 



60 

Standing the necessary delay, was allowed. The American 
envoys, arriving at Ghent on the 2i'th of June, remained in a 
mortifying state of suspense and expectation, for the arrival of 
the British envoys, until the (3th of August. And from the 
period of opening the negotiations, to the date of the last de- 
spatch of the 3l5t of October, it has been seen, that the whole of 
the diplomatic skill of the British government, has consisted 
in consuming time, without approaching any conclusion. ^J'he 
pacification of Paris, had, suddenly and unexpectedly, placed 
at the disposal of the British government, a great naval and 
military forcej the pride and passions of the nation were art- 
fully excited against the United States; and a war of desperate 
and barbarous character was planned, at the very moment that 
the American government, finding its maritime citizens reliev- 
ed, by the course of events, from actual sufferance, under the 
practice of impressment, had authorized its envoys to waive 
those stipulations upon the subject, which might, otherwise, 
have been indispensable precautions. 

Hitherto the American govenment has shown the justice of 
its cause; its respect for the rights of other nations; and its in- 
here nt love of peace. But the scenes of the war, will, also, 
exhibit a striking contrast, between the conduct of the United 
States, and the conduct of Great Britain. The same insidious 
policy, which taught the prince regent to describe the American 
government as the aggressor in the war, has induced the Bri- 
tish government fclouding the daylight truth of the transaction) 
to call the atrocities of the British fleets and armies, a retalia- 
tion upon the example of the American troops in Canada. The 
United States tender a solemn appeal to the civilized world, 
again-t the fabrication of such a charge; and they vouch, in sup- 
port of their appeal, the known morals, habits, and pursuits of 
their people; the character of their civil and pohticnl institu- 
tions; and the whole career of their navy and their army, as 
humane, as it is brave. Upon what pretext did the British 
admiral, on the ISth of August, 1 814, announce his determi- 
nation, " to destroy and lay waste such towns and districts, 
upon the coast, as 'might be found assailable ?"* It was the 
pretext of a request frop the governor general of the Canadasj 
for aid to carry into effect measures of retaliation; while, in fact, 
the barbarous nature of the war, had been deliberately setded 
and prescribed by the British cabinet. What could have been 
the foundation of such a request? The outrages, and the irre- 
gularities, which tor) often occur during a state of national hos- 
tilities, in violation of die laws of civilized warlare, are al- 

• See admiral Cochraiie'slett. rto IVIr. Monroe, dated tlie 18th of August, 1814; 
and Mr Monroe's auswer of the Gth Sept. IttH". 



51 

ways to be lamented, disavowed, and repaired, by a just and 
honorable government; but if disavowal be made, and if repara- 
tion be offered, there is no foundation for retaliatory violence. 
*' Whatever unauthorized irregularity may have been commit- 
ted by any of the troops of the United States, the American go- 
vernment has been ready, upon principles of sacred and eternal 
obligation, to disavow, and, as far as it might be practicable, 
to repair."*" In every known instance (and they are few) the 
offenders have been subjected to the regular investigation of a 
military tribunal; and an officer, commanding a party of strag- 
g'ers, who were guilty of unworthy excesses, was immediately 
dismissed, without the form of a trial, for not preventing those 
excesses. The destruction of the village of Newark, adjacent 
to Fort George, on the 10th of December, 1813, was long sub- 
sequent to the pillage and conflagration committed on the shores 
of the Chesapeake, throughout the summer of the same year; 
and might fairlv have been alleged as a retaliation lor those 
outrages; but, in fact, it was justified by the American com- 
mander, who ordered it, on the ground, that it became neces- 
sary to the military operations at that place;! while the Ameri- 
can government, as soon as it heard of the act, on the 6th of 
January, ISli, instructed the general commanding the northern 
army, ''to disavow the conduct of the officer who committed 
it; and to transmit to governor Prevost, a copy of the order, 
under color of which that officer had acted.' '^ This disavowal 
was accordingly communicated; and on the 10th of February, 
181 i, governor Prevost answered, " that it had been with great 
satisfaction he had received the assurance, thatthe perpetration 
of the burning of the town of Newark, was both unauthorized 
by the American government, and abhorrent to every Ameri- 
can feeling; that if anv outrages had ensued the v/anton and un- 
justifiable destruction of Newark, passing the bounds of just 
retaliation, they were to be attributed to the influence of irri- 
tated passions, on the part of the unfortunate suftsrers by that 
event, which, in a state of active warfare, it has not been pos- 
sible altogether to restrain; and that it was as little congenial to 
the disposition of his majesty's government, as it was to thatoi" 
the governmentof the U. States, deliberately to adopt any plan of 
policy, which hadfor its object the devastation of private proper- 

* See the letter from the secretary at war to brigadier general M'Lure, dated 
the 4th of October, 1813. 

t General M'Lure's letters to the secretary at war, dated Dec. 10 and 13, 1813. 

i See the letter from the secretary at war, to major general Wilkinson, dated 
rhe 26th of Januarr, 1814. 



5Si 

ty.^'* But the disavowal of the American government was 
not the only expiation of the offence committed by its officer; 
for the British government assumed the province of redress in the 
indulgence of its own vengeance. A few clays after the burning of 
Newark, the British and Indian troops crossed the Niagara, for 
this purpose; they surprised andjseized Fort Niagara, and put its 
garrison to the sword; they burnt the villages of Lewistown,3Ian- 
chester, Tuscarora, Buffalo, and Black Rock; slaughtering and 
abusing the unarmed inhabitants; until, in short, they had laid 
waste the whole of the Niagara frontier, levelling every house 
and every hut, and dispersing, beyond the means of shelter, in 
the extremity of the winter, the male and the female, the old 
and the young. Sir George Prevost himself appears to have 
been sated with the ruin, and the havoc, which had been thus 
inflicted. In his proclamation of the I2th of January, 181i, he 
emphatically declared, that for the burning of Newark, "• the 
opportunity ot punishment had occurred, and a full measure of 
retaliation had taken place;'* and " that it was not his intention 
to pursue further a system of warfare, so revolting to his own 
feelings, and so little congenial to the British character, unless 
the future measures of the enemy should compel him again to 
resort to it."f Nay, with his answer to the American general, 
already mentioned, he transmitted " a copy of that proclama- 
tion, as expressive of the determination, as to his future line of 
conduct;" and added, " that he was happy to learn, that there 
was no probability, that anv measures on the part of the Ameri- 
can government would oblige him to depart from it. "J AVhere, 
then, shall we search for the foundation of the call upon the Bri- 
tish admiral, to aid the governor of Canada in measures of reta- 
liation? Great Britain forgot the principle of retaliation, whei^ 
her orders in council were issued ag.iinst the unoffending neu- 
tral, in resentment of outrages committed by her enemy; and 
surely, she had again forgotten the same principle, when she 
threatened an unceasing violation of the laws of civilized war- 
fare, in retaliation for injuries, which never existed, vr which 
the American government had explicitly disavowed, or which 
had been already avenged by her own arms, in a manner and a 
degree, cruel and unparalleled. The American government, 
after all, has not hesitated to declare, that " for the reparation 
of injuries, of whatever nature they may be, not sanctioned by 

• Seethe letter of major general Wilkinson, to sir George Prevost, dated the 
28th of January, 18)-1, and the answer of sir George Prevost, dated the lOth of 
February, l<>14. 

I See sir George Prevost's proclamation, dated at Quebec, the 12th of Janua 
ry, 1814. 

I See the letter of sir George Prevost to general Wilkinson, dated the 10th of 
I'ebruary, 1614-; atid the British general orders, of the '22d of February, ISl i 



5^S 

the law of nations, which the military or naval force of cither 
power might have committed against the other, it would al- 
wavs be ready to enter into reciprocal arrangements; presuming 
that the British government would neither expect, nor propose, 
any which were not reciprocal."* 

It is now, however, proper to examine the character of the 
warfare, which Great Britain has waged against the United 
States. In Europe, it has already been marked, with astonish- 
ment and indignation, as a warfare of the tomahawk, the 
scalping knife, and the torch; as a warfare, incompatible with 
the usages of civilized nations; as a warfare, that, disclaiming 
all moral influence, inflicts an outrage upon social order, and 
gives a shock to the very elements of humanity. All belligerent 
nations can form alliances with the savage, the African, and 
the bloodhound: but what civilized nation has selected these 
auxiliaries, in its hostilities? It does not require the fleets and 
armies of Great Britain, to lay waste an open country; to burn/ 
unfortified towns, or unprotected villages; nor to plunder th^ 
merchant, the farmer, and the planter, of his stores: these ex\^ 
ploits mav easil)'^ be achieved by a single cruiser, or a petty ^ 
privateer; but when have such exploits been performed on the 
coasts of the continent of Europe, or of the British islands, by 
the naval and military force of any belligerent power; or when 
have they been tolerated by any honorable government, as the 
predatory enterprise of armed individuals? Nor, is the de- 
struction of the public edifices, which adorn the metropolis of a 
country, and serve to commemorate the taste and science of 
the age, beyond the sphere of action of the vilest incendiary, 
as well as of the most triumphant conqueror. It cannot be 
forgotten, indeed, that in the course often years past, the capi- 
tals of the principal powers of Europe have been conquered, 
and occupied alternately, by the victorious armies of each 
other;"!" and yet, there has been no instance of a conflagration 
of the palaces, the temples, or the halls of justice. No: such 
examples have proceeded from Great Britain alone: a nation so 
elevated in its pride; so awful in its power; and so affected in 
its tenderness, for the liberties of mankind! The charge is se- 
vere; but let the facts be adduced. 

1. Great Britain has violated the principles of social law, 
by insidious attempts, to excite the citizens of the United 
States into acts of contumacy, treason, and revolt, against their 
government. For instance: 

* See Mr. Monroe's letter to admiral Cochrane, dated the 6th of September, 
ISU 

t See Mr. Monroe's letter to admiral Cochrane, dated the Cth of September 
1814. * 






si 

No sooner had the American government imposed the re- 
strictive system upon its citizens, to escape from the rage and 
depredation of the belligerent powers, than the British govern- 
ment, then protessing amity towards the United States, issued 
an order, which was, in effect, an invitation to the American 
citizens to break the laws of their country, under a public pro- 
mise of British protection and patronnge, " to all vessels, which 
should engage in an illicit trade, without bearing the customary- 
ship's documents and papers."* 

Again: Daring a period of peace, between the United States 
and Great Britain, in the year 1809, the governor general of 
the Canadas employed an agent (who had previously been en- 
gaged, in a similar service, with the knowledge and approba- 
tion of the British cabinet) *' on a secret and confidential mis- 
sion," into the United States, declaring, " that there was no 
doubt, that his able execution of such a mission, would give 
him a claim, not onlv on the governor general, but on his ma- 
jesty's ministers." The object of tha mission, was to ascer- 
tain, whether there existed a disposition in any portion of the 
citizens, " to bring about a separation of the eastern states 
from the general union; and how far, in such an event, they 
would look up to England for assistance, or be disposed to 
enter into a connexion with her." The agent was instructed 
** to insinuate, that if any of the citizens should wish to enter 
into a communication with the British government, through 
the governor general, he was authorized to receive such com- 
munication; and that he would safely transmit it to the gover- 
nor general. "f He was accredited bv ja formal instrument, un- 
der the seal and signature of the governor general, to be pro- 
duced, "if he saw good ground for expecting, that the doing 
so might lead to a more confidential communication, than he 
could, otherwise, locjk for;" and he was furnished with a cipher, 
" for carrying on the secret correspondence. | The virtue and 
patriotism of the citizens of the United States, were superior 
to the arts and corruption, employed in this secret and confi- 
dential mission, if it ever was disclosed to any of them; and 
the mission itself terminated, as soon as the arrangement with 
Mr. Erskine was announced ^ But, in the act of recalling the 
secret eniissary, he was informed, '* that the whole of his let- 
ters were transcribing to be sent home, where they could not 

* See ihe instructions to the commanders of British ships of war and priva- 
teers, dated the 11th of April, 1808. 

•)■ See the letter from Mr. Ryland, the secretary of the governor gei\eral, to 
Mr. Henry, dated the 26th of January, 1SU9. 

\ Sec the letter of sir James Craig, to Mr. Henry, dated February 6, 1809, 

§ Hen the same letter, and Mr. Rj- land's letter of the 26th of January, 1809. 



55 

fail of doing him great credit, and it was hoped they might 
eventually contribute to his permanent advantage."* To endea- 
vor to realize that hope, the emissary proceeded to London; all 
the circumstances of his mission were made known to the Bri- 
tish minister; his services were approved and acknowledged; 
and he was sent to Canada, for a reward; with a recommenda- 
tory letter from lord Liverpool to sir George Prevost, "stating 
his lordship's opinion of the ability and judgment which Mr. 
Henry had manifested on the occasions mentioned in his memo- 
rial, (his secret and confidential missions,) and of the benefit the 
public service might derive from his active employment, in any 
public situation, in which sir George Prevost might think pro- 
per to place him. "f The v/orld will judge upon these facts, 
and the rejection of a parliamentary call, for tfie production of 
the papers relating to them, what credit is due to the prince 
regent's assertion, " that Mr. Henry's mission was undertaken, 
without the authority or even knowledge of his majesty's go- 
vernment." The first mission was certainly known to the 
British government, at the time it occurred; for, the secretary 
of the governor general expressly states, "that the information 
and political observations, heretofore received from Mr. Henry, 
were transmitted by his excellency to the sec^^etary of state, 
who had expressed his particular approbation of them;"^ the 
second mission was approved when it was known; and it re- 
mains for the British government to explain, upon any esta- 
blished principles of morality and justice, the essential differ- 
ence between ordering the offensive acts to be done; and reap- 
ing the fruit of those acts, without either expressly, or tacitly, 
condemning them. 

Again: These hostile attempts upon the peace and union of 
the United States, preceding the declaration of war, have been 
followed by similar machinations, subsequent to that event. 
The governor general of the Canadas has endeavored, occa- 
sionally, in his proclamations and general orders, to dissuade 
the militia of the United States, from the performance of the 
duty, which thev owed to their injured country; and the efforts, 
at Quebec and ilalifax, to kindle the flame of civil war, have 
been as incessant, as they have been insidious and abortive. 
Nay, the governor of the island of Barbadoes, totally forgetful 
ot the boasted article of the British magna charta, in favor of 
foreign merchants, found withm the British dominions, upon 



• See Mr. Ryland's letter, dated the 2b;h of June, 1809. 
^ t See the letter from lord Liverpool to su- George Prevost, dated the 16th of 
September, 1811. 

I See Mr, Ryland's letter of the 26th of Januarv, 1809. 



56 

the breaking out of hostilities, resolved that every American 
merchant, within his jurisdiction at the declaration of war, 
should, at once, be treated as a prisoner of war; because every 
citizen of the United States was enrolled in the inilicia; because 
the militia of the United Stales, were required to serve their 
country, beyond the limits of the state, to which they particu- 
larly belonged; and because the militia of " all the states, 
which had acceded to this measure, were, in the view of oir 
George Beckwith, acting as a French conscription"* 

Again: Nor was this course of conduct confined to the colo- 
nial authorities. On the 2Gth of October, 1812, the British 
government issued an order in council, authorizing the go- 
vernors of the British West India islands, to grant licenses to 
American vessels, for the importation and exportation of certain 
articles, enumerated in the order; but, in the instructions, 
which accompanied the order, it was expressly provided, that 
*' whatever importations were proposed to be made, rrom the 
United States of America, should be by licenses, confined to the 
ports in the eastern states exclusively, unless there was reason 
to suppose, that the object of the order would not be fulfilled, if 
licenses were not granted, for importations from the other ports 
in the United States. "f 

The president of the United States has not hesitated to place 
before the nation, with expressions of a just indignation, ''the 
policy of Great Britain thus proclaimed to the world; intro- 
ducing into her modes of warfare, a system equally distin- 
guished by the deformity of its features, and the depravity of 
its character; and having for its object, to dissolve the ties of 
allegiance, and the sentiments of loyalty, in the adversary na- 
tion; and to seduce and separate its component parts, the one 
from the other. "^ 

2. Great Britain has violated the laws of humanity and honor, 
by seeking alliances, in the pi-osecuiion of the war, with sava- 
ges, pirates, and slaves. 

The British agency, in exciting the Indians, at all times, to 
commit hostilities upon the frontier of the United States, is too 
notorious, to admit of a direct and general denial. It has some- 
times, however, been said, that such conduct was unauthorized 
by the British government; and the prince regent, seizing the 
single instance, of an intimation, alleged to be given, on the 

• See the remarkable state jiaper, issued by governor Beckwith, at Barbadoe;,, 
on the 13th of November, 1S12. 

f See the proclamation of the governor of Bermuda, dated the 14th of Janii- 
ary, 1814; and the instructions from the British secretary for foreign aflairs, 
dated November 9, 1812. 

\ See the message from the president to congress, dated the 24th of February, 
1813. 



57 

part of sir James Craig, the governor of the Canadas, that ai 
attack was meditated by the Indians, has affirmed, that *' the 
charge of exciting the Indians to offensive measures against 
the United States, was void of foundation; that, before the war 
began, a policy the most opposite had been uniformly pursued; 
and that proof of this was tendered bj' Mr. Foster to the Arhe- 
rican government."* But is it not known in Kurope, as well 
as in America, that the British Northwest Company maintain 
a constant intercourse, of trade, and council, with the tndiansj 
that their interests are often in direct collision with the interests 
of the inhabitants of the United States, and that by means of 
the inimical dispositions, a^d the active agencies, of the com- 
panv (seen, understood, and tacitly sanctioned b}- the local au- 
thorities of Canada) all the evils of an [ndian war may be shed 
upon the United States, without the authority of a formal or- 
der, emanating immediately from the British government? 
Hence, the American government, in answer to the evasive 
protestations of the British minister, residing at Washington, 
frankly communicated the evidence of British agency, which 
had been received, at different periods, since the year 1807; and 
observed, " that whatever mav have been the disposiiion of the 
British government, the conduct of its subordinate agents had 
tended to excite the hostility of the Indian tribes towards the 
United States; and that in estimating the comparative evidence 
on the subject, it was impossible not to recollect the communi- 
cation lately made, respecting the conduct of sir James Craig, 
in another important transaction (the employment of Mr. Hen- 
ry, as an accredited agent, to alienate and deta'.h the citizens 
of a particular section of the union, from their government) 
which, it appeared, was approved by lord Liverpool. "f 

The proof, however, that the British agents and military of- 
ficers, were guilty of the charge, thus exhibited, become con- 
clusive, when, subsequent to the communication, which was 
made to the British minister, the. defeat and illght of general 
Proctor's army, on the of placed in the pos- 

session of the American commiander, the correspondence and 
papers of the British officers. Selected from the documents, 
which were obtained upon that occasion, the contents of a tew 
letters will serve to characterize the whole of the mass. la 
these letters, written by Mr. M'lvee, the British agent, to co- 



* See the prince regent's declaration of the 10th of January, 1813. 

See, also, Mr Foscer's letters to Mr. Monroe, dated the 2«th of December. 
1811, and the 7th and 8th of June, 1812; and i\Ir. Monroe's answer, dated the 
9th of January, 1812, and the lUth of June, 1812; and the docunient.s, which 
Stcompanied the correspondence. 

t See iMr, Monroe's letter to Mr. Foster, dated the 10th of June, 1S12. 



bS 

ionel England, the commander of the British troops, super- 
scribed, "on his majesty's service," and dated during the months 
of July and August, 179*, the period of general Wayne's suc- 
cessful expedition against the Indians, it appears, that the scalps 
taken by the Indians were sent to the British establishment at 
the rapids of the Miami;* that the hostile operations of the 
Indians were concerted with the British agents and officers;f 
that when certain tribes of Indians " having completed the 
belts they carried with scalps and prisoners, and being without 
provisions, resolved on going home, it was lamented, that his 
majesty's posts would derive no security, from the late great in- 
flux of Indians into that part of the country, should they per- 
sist in their resolution of returning so soonj^'J that " the 
British agents were immediately to hold a council at the Glaze, 
in order to try if they could prevail on the Lake Indians to re- 
niain; but that without provisions and ammunition being sent to 
that place, it was conceived to be extremely difficult to keep them 
together;"^ and that "colonel England was making great exer- 
tions to supply the Indians with provisions. "|| But the lan- 
guage of the correspondence becomes, at length, so plain and 
direct, that it seems impossible to avoid the conclusion of a 
governmental agency, on the part of Great Britain, in advising, 
aiding, and conducting, the Indian war, while she professed 
friendship and peace towards the United States. "Scouts are 
sent, (says Mv. M'Kee, to colonel England,) to view the situa- 
tion of the American army; and 7ve 7iow muster one thousand 
Indians. All the Lake Indians, from Sugana downwards, should 
not lose one moment in joining their brethren, as every acces- 
sion of strength, is an addition to their spirits. "t And again: 
" I have been employed several days in endeavoring to fix the 
Indians, who have been driven from their villages and corn- 
fields, between the fort and the bay. Swan creek is generally 
agreed upon, and will be a ver^^ convenient place for the deli- 
very of provisions, SiC."** Whether, under the various proofs 
of the British agency, in exciting Indian hostilities against the 
United States, in a time of peace, presented in the course of 
the present narrative, the prince regent's declaration, that, " be- 
fore the war began, a policy the most opposite had been uni- 

* See the letter from Mr. M'Kee to colonel England, duted the 2d of July. 
1794. 

t See the letter from the same to the same, dated the 5th of July, 179i. 

\ See the same letter. 

% See the same letter. 

II See the same letter. 

T! See the letter from Mr. M'Kee to colonel England, dated the 13tU of Au- 
gust, 1794. 

*• Sec the letter from the same to the same, dated the 30th of August, 1794. 



69 

tbrmly pursued," by the British government,* is to be 
ascribed to a want of infornaation, or a want of candor, the 
American government is not disposed, more particularly, to in- 
vestigate. 

But, indeoendent of these causes of just complaint, arising in 
a time of peace, it will be found, that when the war was declar- 
ed, the alliance of the British government with the Indians, 
was avowed, upon principles, the most novel, producing conse- 
quences the most dreadful. The savages were brought into the 
war, upon the ordinary footing of allies, without regard to the 
inhuman character of their warfare; which neither spares age, 
nor sex; and which is more desperate towards the captive, at 
the stake, than even towards the combatant, in the field. It 
seemed to be a stipulation of the compact between the allies, 
thatthe British might imitate, but should not control, the fe- 
rocity of the savages. While the British troops behold, with- 
out compunction, the tomahawk and the scalping knile, bran- 
dished against prisoners, old men and children, and even against 
pregnant women, and while they exultingly, accept the bloody 
scalps of the slaughtered Americans;t the Indian exploits in 
battle, are recounted and applauded by the British general or- 
ders. Rank and station are assigned to them, in the military 
movements of the British army; and the unhallowed league 
was ratified, with appropriate emblems, by intertwining an Ame- 
rican scalp, with the decorations of the mace, which the com- 
mander of the northern army of the United States found in 
the legislative chamber of York, the capital of Upper Canada. 

In the single scene, that succeeded the battle of Frenchtown, 
near the river Raisin, where the American troops were defeated 
by the allies, under the command of general Proctor, there 
will be found concentrated, upon indisputable proof, an illus- 
tration of the horrors of the warfare, which Great Britain has 
pursued, and still pursues, in co-operation with the savages of 
the south, as well as with the savages of the north. The Ame- 
rican army capitulated, on the 22d of January, 1813; yet, after 
the faith of the British commander had been pledged, in the 
terms of the capitulation; and while the British officers and sol- 
diers, silently and exultingly, contemplated the scene, some of 
the American prisoners of war were tomahawked, some were 
shot, and some were burnt. Many of the unarmed inhabitants 

* See the prince regent's declaration of the 10th of January, 1^13. 

t See the letter from the American general Harrison, to the British general 
Proctor. 

See a letter from the British major Mulr, Indian agent, to colonel Proctor, 
dated the 26th September, 1S12, and a letter from colonel St. George to colonel 
Pio;tor, dated the 28th of Octobej-, 1812, found among colonel Proctor's papers. 



60 

of the IMlcliigan territorv- were massacred; their property was 
plundered, and their horses were destroyed.*^ The dead bodies 
of the mangled Americans, were exposed, unburied, to be de- 
voured by dogs and swine: " because, as the British officers 
declared, the Indians would not permit the interment;"'!' and 
some of the Americans, who survived the carnage, had been 
extricated from danger, only by being purchased at a price, as 
a part of the booty belonging to the Indians. But, to comjilete 
tins dreadiul view of human depravity, and huma^i wretched- 
ness, it is only necessary to add, that an American phvsician, 
who was despatched with a flag of truce, to ascertain the situa- 
tion of his wounded brethren, and two persons, his companions, 
were intercepted bv the Indians, in their humane mission; the 
privilege of the flag was disregarded by the British officers; 
the physician, after being wounded, and one of his companions, 
were made prisoners; and the third person of the party was 
killed.^ 

But the savage, who had never known the restraints of civi- 
lized life, and the pirate, who had broken the bonds of society, 
were alike the objects of British conciliation and alliance, for 
the purposes of an unparalleled warfare. A horde of pirates 
and outlaws had formed a confederacy and establishment on 
the island of Barrataria, near the mouth of the river Mississip- 
pi. AVill Europe believe, that the commander of the British 
forces, addressed the leader of the confederacy, from the neu- 
tral territory of Pensacola, " calling upon him, with his brave 
foiiowers, to entef into the service of Great Britain, in winch 
he should have the rank of captain; promising that lands should 
be given to them all, in proportion to their respective ranks, on 
a peace tiiking place; assuring them, that their property should 
be guaranteed, and their persons protected; and asking, in re- 
turn, that they would cease all hostilities against Spain, or the 
allies of Great Britain, and place their ships and vessels, un- 
der the British commanding officer on the station, until the com- 
mander in chief's pleasure should be known, with a guarantee 
of their fair value at all events?"|| There wanted only to exem- 
plify the debasement of such an act, the occurrence, that the 

* See the report of the committee of the house of i-epresentatives, on the 31st 
of •> Illy, 1812; and the depositions and documents accompanying it. 

t Sec the o [icial report of Mr. Daker, tlie agent for tlie prisoners, to briga- 
dier ;.;eneral VVinchejter, dated the 2l)th of February, 1813 

I In addition \o this description of savage warfare, under British auspices, see 
the facis contained in the correspondence between general Harrison, and general 
Dninmionij. 

li Sec the letter addressed by Edward Nichols, lieutenant-colonel commanding 
)))s Britannic majesty's forces in tiie Floridas, to Mimsieur Lalitte, or the com- 
mandant at Barrataria, dated the 31st of August, iSl-i, 



CI 

pirate should spurn the proffered alliance; and, accordingly, 
Lafitte's answer was indignantly given, by a delivery of the let- 
ter, containing die British proposition, to the zVmerican gover- 
nor of liouisiana. 

There' were other sources, however, of support, which Great 
Britain was prompted by her vengeance to employ, in opposi- 
tion to the plainest dictates of her own colonial policy. The 
events, which have extirpated, or dispersed, the white popula- 
tion of St. Domingo, are in the recollection of all men. Al- 
though British humanity ni-ght not shrink, from the infliction 
of similar calamities upon the southern states of America, the 
danger of that course, either as an incitement to a revolt, of the 
slaves in the British islands, or as a cause for retaliation, on 
the part of the United States, ought to have admonished her 
against its adoption. Yet, in a formal proclamation, issued by 
the commander in chief of his Britannic majesty's squadrons, 
upon the American station, the slaves of the American planters 
were invited to join the British standard, in a covert phraseolo- 
gy, that afforded but a slight veil, for the real design. Thus, 
admiral Cochrane, reciting, *' that it had been represented to 
him, that many persons now resident in the United States, had 
expressed a desire to withdraw therefrom, with a view ofen- 
teruig into hi^ viajesty\s service^ or of being received as free 
settlers inio som<t of his majesty's colonies," proclaimed, that 
*' all those who might be disposed to emigrate from the United 
States, would, with their families, be received on board of his 
majesty's ships or vessels of war, or at the military posts that 
might be established upon, or near, the coast of the United 
States, when they would have their choice of either entering 
into his majesty's sea or land forces, or of being sent as free 
settlers to the British possessions in North America, or the 
West Indies, where they would meet with all due encourage- 
ment."* But even the negroes seem, in contempt, or disgust, 
to have resisted the solicitation; no rebellion, or massacre, en- 
sued: and the allegation, often repeated, that in relation to those 
who were seduced, or forced, from the service of their masters, 
instances have occurred of some being afterwards transported to 
the British West India islands, and there sold into slavery, for 
the benefit of the captors, remains without contradiction. So 
complicated an act of injustice would demand the reprobation 
of mankind. And let the British government, which professes 
a just abhorrence of the African slave-trade; which endeavors 
to impose, in that respect, restraints upon the domestic policy 
of France, Spain, and Portugal; answer, if it can, the solemn 
charge, against their faith, and their humanity. 

* See admiral Cochrane's proclamation, dated at Bcrmuda,the 2d of April, ISli. 



62 

3. Great Britain has violated the laws of civilized' warfare, 
by plundering private property; by outraging female honor; by 
burning unprotected cities, towns, villages, and houses; and by 
laying waste whole districts of an unresisting country. 

The menace and the practice of the British naval and milita- 
ry force, " to destroy and lay waste such towns and districts 
upon the American coast, as might be found assailable," have 
been excused upon the pretext of retaliation, for the wanton de- 
struction committed by the /Imerican army in Upper Cana- 
da;"* but the fallacy of the pretext has already been exposed. 
It will be recollected, however, that the act of burning Newark 
was instantaneously disavowed by the American government; 
that it occurred in December, 1813; and that sir George Pre- 
vost himself acknowledged, on the lOth of February, ISli, that 
the measure of retaliation, for all the previously imputed mis- 
conduct of the American troops, was then full and complete.f 
Between the month of February, 181i, when that acknowledg- 
ment was made, and the month of August, 1814, when the Bri- 
tish admiral's denunciation was issued, what are the outrages 
upon the part of the American troops in Canada, to justify a 
call for retaliation? No: it was the system, not the incident, 
of the war; and intelligence of the system had been received at 
Washington, from the American agents in Europe, ,with refe- 
rence to the operations of admiral Warren, upon the shores of 
the Chesapeake, long before admiral Cochrane had succeeded 
to the command of the British fleet, on the American station. 

As an appropriate introduction to the kind of war, which 
Great Britain intended to wage against the inhabitants of the 
United States, transactions occurred in England, under the 
avowed direction of the government itself, that could not fail 
to wound the moral sense of every candid and generous spec- 
tator. AH the officers and mariners of the American merchant 
ships, who, having lost their vessels in other places, had gone 
to England on tlie way to America; or who had been employed 
in British merchant ships, but were desirous of i-eturning home; 
or who had been detained, in consequence of the condemna- 
tion of their vessels under the British orders in council; or 
who had arrived in England, through any of the other casual- 
ties of the seafaring life; were condemned to be treated as pri- 
soners of war; na\', some of ihem were actually impressed, 
while soliciting their passports; although not one of their num- 
ber had been, in any way, engaged in hostilities against Great 
Britain; and although the American government had afforded 

• See admiral Cochraiie's letter to Mr. Monroe, dated August 18, 1814. 
■)• See sir George Prevost's letter to general Wilkinson, dated the 10th of Fe- 
bruary, lb 14. 



every facility to the departure of the same class, as well as of 
every other class, of British subjects, from the United States, 
for a reasonable period, after the declaration of war.* But 
this act of injustice, for which even the pretext of retaliation 
has not been advanced, was accompanied by another of still 
greater cruelty and oppression. The American seamen, who 
had been enlisted, or impressed, into the naval service of Great 
Britain, were long retained, and many of them are yet retained, 
on board of British ships of war, where they are compelled to 
combat against their country and their friends; and even whea 
the British government tardily and reluctantly recognized the 
citizenship of impressed Americans, to a number exceeding 
1000 at a single naval station, and dismissed them from its 
service on the water; it was only to immure them as prisoners 
of war on the shore. These unfortunate persons, who had 
passed into the power of the British government, by a violation 
of their own rights and inclinations, as well as of the rights ot 
their country, and who could only be regarded as the spoils of 
unlawful violence, were, nevertheless, treated as the fruits of 
lawful war. Such was the indemnification, which Great Bri- 
tain offered for the wrongs, that she had inflicted; and such the 
reward, which she bestowed, for services that she had received."]* 
Nor has the spirit of British warfare been confined to viola- 
tions of the usages of civilized nations, in relation to the United 
States. The system of blockade, by orders in council, has 
been revived; and the American coast, from Maine to Louisia- 
na, has been declared, by the proclamation of a British admiral, 
to be in a state of blockade, which every day's observation 
proves to be, practically, ineffectual, and which, indeed, the 
whole of the British navy would be unable to enforce and main- 
tain. J Neidier the orders in council, acknowledged to be ge- 
nerally unlawful, and declared to be merely retaliatctry upon 
France; nor the Berlin and Milan decrees, which placed the 
British islands in a state of blockade, without the force of a 
single squadron to maintain it; were, in principle, more inju- 
rious to the rights of neutral commerce, than the existing block- 
ade of the United States. The revival, therefore, of the system, 
without the retaliatory pretext, must demonstrate to the world, 
a determination, on the part of Great Britain, to acquire a 
commercial monopoly, by every demonstration of her naval 

* See Mr. Beasley's correspondence with the British governinent, in October, 
November, and December, IS 12. 

See, also, the act of congress, passed the Gth of July, 1S12. 

t See the letter from Mr. Beasley, to Mr. M'Leay, dated the 13th of March, 
1815. 

I See the successive blockades announced by the British government, and the 
successive naval conimanc^rs on tlic American station. 



6i 

power. The trade of the United States with Russia, and with 
othernorthernpwwers, by whose governnients no edicts, violat- 
ing neutral rights, had been issued, was cut olf by the operation 
ol the British orders in council of the year 1807. as effectually 
as their trade with France and i)er allies, although the retaliato- 
ry principle was totally inapplicable to the case. And the 
blockade of the year 1814, is an attempt to destroy the trade 
of those nations, and, indeed, of all the other nations of Eu- 
rope, with the United States; uhile Great Britain, herself, with 
the same policy and ardur, that marked her illicit trade with 
France, when France was her enemy, encourages a clandestine 
traffic between her subjects and the American citizens, where- 
ver her possessions come in contact with the territory of the 
United States. 

But approaching nearer to the scenes of plunder and violence, 
of cruelty and conflagration, wiiich the British warfare exhibits 
on the coast of the United States, it must be again asked, what 
acts of the American government, of its ships of war, or of its 
armies, had occurred, or were even alleged, as a pretext, for the 
perpetration of this series of outrages? It will not be asserted, 
that they were sanctioned bv the usages of modern war; because, 
the sense of all Europe would revolt at the assertion. It will 
not be said, that they were tiie unauthorized excesses of the 
British troops; because scarcely an act of plunder and violence, 
of cruelty and conflagration, has been committed, except in the 
immediate presence, under the positive orders, and with the 
personal agency, of British officers. It must not be again insi- 
nuated,' that they were provoked by the American example; be- 
cause it has been demonstrated, that all such insinuations are 
without color, and without proof. And, after all, the dreadful 
and disgraceful progress of the British arms, will be traced, as 
the effect of that animosity, arising out of recollections connect- 
ed with the American revolution, which has already been notic- 
ed; or, as the effect of that jealousv, which the commercial en- 
terprise, and native resources, of the United States, are calcu- 
lated to excite, in the councils of a nation, aiming at universal 
dominion upon the ocean. 

In the month of April, 1S13, the inhabitants of Poplar Island, 
in the bay of Chesapeake, were pillaged; and the cattle and 
other live stock of the farmers, beyond what the enemy could 
remove, were wantonly killed. *^ 

In the same month of April, the wharf, the stores, and the fish- 
ery, at Frenchtown Landing, were destroyed, and the private 
stores, and storehouses, in the village of Frenchtown, were burnt.t 

' Sec lilt lie-position of William Scars. 

t See tlic tlcpobitiyns of I'ribbv Anderson and Cordelia Pennington. 



65 

In the same month of April, the enemy landed repeatedly on 
Sharp's Island, and made a generulswt ej) ol the stuck, alFcctuig, 
however, to pay for a part of it.* 

On the 3d of May, 1813, the town of Havre de (irace was 
pillaj^ed and Iiurnt, by a force under the command of 'admiral 
Cockl)a.;n. The British officers, being adumnislied, *' that with 
civili/.ed nations at war, j^rivate property had alwa\s been re- 
spected," hastily replied, " that as the Americans wanted war, 
they should now feel its effects; and that the town should be laid 
in ashes." They broke the windows of the church; they pur- 
loined the houses of the furniturt; they stripped women and 
children of their clothes; and when an unfortunate female com-, 
plained, that she coukl not leave her house with her little chil- 
dren, she was unfeelingly told, " that her house should be 
burnt with herself and her children in it.""!" 

On the Gth of May, 1813, Fredericktown and Georgetown, 
situated on Sassalias river, in the state of Maryland, were pil- 
laged and burnt, and the adjacent country was laid waste, hv a 
force under the command of admiral Cockburn; and the oiTi- 
cers were the most active on the occasion. J 

On the 2.'2d of June, 1813, the British forces made an attack 
upon Crane)' Island, with a view to obtain possession of Nor- 
folk, which the commanding officers had promised, in case of 
success, to give up to the plunder of the troops. || 'JTie British 
were repulsed; but enraged by defeat and d'isajjpomtment, their 
course was directed to Hampton, which thev entered on the 
of June. The scene, that ensued, exceecls all power of de- 
scription; and a detail of facts would be offensive to the feelings 
of decorum, as well as of humanity. '* A defenceless and un- 
resisting town was given up to indiscriminate pillage; though 
civilized war tolerates this only, as to fortified places carried by 
assault, and after summons. Individuals, male and female, 
were stripped naked; a sick man was stabbed twice in the hos- 
pital; another sick man was shot in his bed, and in the arms 
of his wife, who was also wounded, long after the retreat of 
the American troops; and females, the married and the single, 
suffered the extremity of personal abuse from the troops of the 
enemy, and from the infatuated negroes, at their instigation."^ 

* See Jacob Gibson's deposition. 

I See the deposition of William T. Killpatrick, James Wood, Rosanna Moore, 
and R. Mar.stield- 

I See the depositions of John Stavely, William Spencer, Joshua Ward, James 
Scanlan, Richard liarnaby, F B Chandlear, Jonatliau Greenwood, John Allen, 
T. Robertson, M. N. Cannon, and J. '1', Vearey. 

II See general Taylor's letter to the secretary atwar, dated the 2d of July, 1813. 
§ See the letters from general Taylor to admiral Warren, dated the i9th of 

June, 1813; to general sir Sidnev Beckwith, dated the 4th and 5th oi Julv. 1613; 
9 



66 

The fact, that these atrocities were committed, the commander 
of the -British fleeti admiral W'arren, and the commander of 
the British troops, sir Sidney Beckvvith, admitted, without he- 
^sitation;* but they resorted, as on other occasions, to the un- 
worthy and unavailing pretext of a justifiable retaliation. It 
was said, by the liritisii general, " that the excesses at Hamp- 
to'.i, were occasioned by an occurrence, at the recent attempt 
upon Craney Island, when the British troops in a barge, sunk, 
by the American guns, clung to the wreck of the boat; but se- 
veral Americans waded oft from the island, fired upon, and 
shot these men." The truth of the assertion was denied; the 
act, if it had been perpetrated by the American troops, was 
promptly disavowed by their commander; and a board of offi- 
cers appointed to investigate the facts, after stating the evidence, 
reported " an unbiassed opinion, that the charge against the 
American troops was unsupported; and that the character of 
the American soldiery for humanity and magnanimity, had not 
been committed, but on the contrary confirmed. "f The result 
of this inqu.ry was communicated to the British general; repa- 
ration was demanded; but it was soon perceived, that whatever 
might personally be the liberal dispositions of tlrat officer, no 
adequate reparation could be made, as the conduct of his troop? 
was directed and sanctioned by his government.^ 

During the period of these transactions, the village of Lew- 
istown, near the capes of the Delaware, inhabited chiefly by 
fisb.ermen and pilots, and the village of Stonington, seated up- 
on the shores of Connecticut, were unsuccesslully bombarded. 
Armed parties, led by officers of rank, landed daily from the 
British squadron, making predatory incursions into the open 
country; rifling and burning the houses and cottages of peacea- 
ble and retired families; pillaging the produce of the planter 
and the farmer; (their tobacco, their grain, and their cattle;) 
committing violence on the persons of the unprotected inhabi- 
tants; seizing upon slaves, wherever they could be found, as 
booty of vvar; and breaking 0[)en the coffins of the dead, in 

toilie secretary of war, dated the 2d of July, 1813; and to captain Myers, of the 
last date. 

See, also, the letter from major Cnitchfield to governor Barbour, dated tlie. 
20tli of June, IMS; the letiers from capt. Cooper to lieutenant governor Mallory, 
dalcd in July, \i>\'6; the report of JMessrs Gnliln and Lively to major Cruvch- 
tield, dated the 4fh of July, Ifilo; and col. Parker's publication in the Enquirer. 

* See admiral Warren's letter to general Taylor, dated the 2yth of June, 1813; 
sir Sidney lieckwith's letter to general Taylor, dated the same day; and the re- 
port of capt. Myers to general 'I'aylor, of Jul\ ~, 1813. 

I See the report of liie proceedings of the board of officers, appointed by the ge- 
neral order, r.f the 1st ti'.iuly, 1813. 

\ See general Taylor's letter to sir Sidney Beckwith, dated the 5th of July, 
lSl->; and the answer of the following day. 



67 

search of plunder, or committing robbery on the altars of a 
church at Chaptico, St. Inagoes and Tappahannock, with a sacri- 
legious rage. . 

But the consummation of British (outrage, yet remains to be 
stated, from the awful and imperishable memorials of the capi- 
tal at AVashington. It has been already observed, that the 
massacre of the American prisoners, at the river ilaisin, occur- 
red in January, 1813; that throughout the same year, the deso- 
lating warfare of Great Britain, without once alleging a retalia- 
torv excuse, made the shores of the Chesapeake, and of its tri- 
butary rivers, a general scene of ruin and distress; and that in 
the month of February, 181-i, sir George Prevost himself, ac- 
knowledged, that the measures of retaliation, for the unauthoriz- 
ed burning of Newark, in December, ISiS, and for all the excess- 
es, which had been imputed to the American armv, was, at that 
time, full and complete. The United States, indeed, regarding 
what was due to their own character, rather than what was due to 
the conduct of their enemy, had forborne to authorize a just re- 
tribution; and even disdained to place thy destruction of New- 
ark to retaliatory account, for the general pillage and conflagra- 
tion which had been previously perpetrated. It was notv^ithout 
astonishment, therefore, that after more than a year of patient 
suffering, they heard it announced in August, 1814, that the 
towns and districts upon their coast, v/ere to be destroyed and 
laid waste, in revenge for unspecified and unknown acts of de- 
struction, which were charged against the American troops in 
Upper Canada. The letter of admiral Cochrane was dated on 
the 18th, but it was not received until the 3ist of August, 181i'. 
In the intermediate time, the enemy debarked a body of about 
5 or 6000 troops at Benedict, on the Patuxent, and by a sudden 
and steady march, through Bladensburgh, approached the city 
of "Washington. This city has been selected for the seat of the 
American government; but the number of its houses does not 
exceed nine hundred, spread over an extensive site; the whole 
number of its inhabitants does not exceed eight, thousand; and 
the adjacent country is thinly populated. Alihough the neces- 
sary precautions had been ordered, to assemble the militia, 
for the defence of the city, a variety of causes combined to 
render the defence unsuccessful; and the enemy took possession 
of Washington, on the evening of the 2*th of August, 181 i-. 
The commanders of the British force held, at that time, admi- 
ral Cochrane's desolating order, although it was then unkno^vn 
to the government and the people of the United Slates; l)ut 
conscious of the danger of so distant a separation irom the 
British fleet, and desirous, bv every plausible artifice, to deter 
the citizens from flying to arms against the invaders, they dlsa- 



68 

vowed ail design of injuring private persons and property, and 
gave afcbUiances of proLcclion, wherever there was submission. 
General lioss and admiral Cockburn then proceeded in person, 
to direct and superintend the business of coiiflagration; in a 
place, which had yielded to their arms, which was unfortified, 
and by which no hostility was threatened. Thev set fire to the 
capitol, wiihin whose walls were contained, the halls of the 
congress of the United Slates, the hall of their highest tribunal 
lor the administration of justice, the archives of tiie legislauire, 
and the national library. 'I'hey set fire to the edirice, which 
the United States had erected for the residence of their chief 
magistrate. And they set fire to the costly and extensive build- 
ings, erected for the acconimodati m of the principal oiiicers of 
the governiuent, in the transaction of the public business. 
These magnificent monuments of the progress of the arts, 
which Amer;ca had borrowed from her parent Europe, with all 
the testimonials of taste and literature which they contained, 
were, on the memorable nighc of tire 2i-th of August, consign- 
ed to the flames, while British officers of high rank and com- 
mand, united with their troops in riotous carousals, by the light 
of the burning pile. 

But the character of the incendiary had so entirely superced- 
ed thi^ character of the soldier, on this unparalleled expedition, 
that a great portion of the munitions of war, which had not 
been consumed, when the navy yard was ordered to be de- 
stroyed upon the approach of the British troops, were left un- 
touched; and an extensive foundery oi" cannon, adjoining the 
city oif Washington, was lelt tminjurcd; when, in the nig ht of 
the 25th of August, the army suddenly decamped, and return- 
ing, with evident marks of precipitation and alarm, to their 
ships, left the interment of their dead, and the care of their 
wounded, to the enemy, whom they had thus injured and insult- 
ed, in violation ol" the laws of civilized war. 

I'he counterpart to the scene exhibited by the British army, 
was next exhibited by the JBruish n ivy. Soon after the mid- 
night flight of general Ross irum AVashington, a squadron of 
British ships of war ascended the Totomac, and reached the 
town of Alexandria on the 27th of August, ISl-i.. The ma- 
gistrates, presuming that the general destruction of the town 
V as intended, asked, on what terms it might be saved. The 
naval commander declared, " that the only conditions in his 
power to olh r," were such us not only required a surrender of 
all naval and ordnance stores, (public and private,) but of all 
the shipping; and oi all the merchandise in the city, as well as 
such as had been removed, since the 19th of August." The 
conditions, therefore, amounted to the entire plunder of Alex- 



69 

andria, an unfortified and unresisting town, in order to save the 
buildings iVom cicsuuciion. 'i'he capitulation was made; and 
the entm) bcre away the fruits ot his predatory enterprise, in 
triumph. 

But even while this narrative is passing from the press, a 
new retaliatory pretext has been formed, to cover the disgrace of 
the scene, which wa.-. transacted at Washingion. In tlie address 
of the governor in chief to ihe provincial [)arliament of Canada, 
on the 2ith of January, 1815, it is asserted, in ambigious lan- 
guage, '■ that) as a just retribution, the proud capitol at Wash- 
ington, has experienced a similar fate to that u-.HLted by an 
American force on the seat of go'jcrnment, in Upper Canada." 
The town of York, in U[)per Canada, was taken by the Ameri- 
can army under the comm;nid ci general Dearborn, on the 27th 
of April, 181.);*" and it was evacuated on tiic succeeding 1st of 
May; although it was again visited tor a day, by an American 
squadron, under the command of commodore Chimney, on the 
4th of August f At the time of the capture, the enemy, on his 
retreat, set fire to his magazine, and the injury produced by the 
explosion was great and extensive; but neither then, nor on the 
visit of commodore Chauncy, was any edifice, which had been, 
erected for civil uses, destro) ed bv the authority of the military 
or the naval commander; and the destruction of such edifices, 
by any part of their force, would have been a direct violation of 
the positive orders which they had issued. O^i both occasions, in- 
deed, the public stores of the enemv were authorized to be seized, 
and his public storehouses to be burnt; but it is known ihat pri- 
vate persons, houses, and property, were left uninjured. If, 
therefore, sir George Prevost deeujs such acts inflicted on " the 
seat of government in Upper Canada" similar to the acts which 
were perpetrated at "Washmgton, he has yet to perform the task 
of tracing the features of sunilarity; since, at Washington the 
public edifices which had been erected for civil uses, were alone 
destroyed, while the munitions of war, and the foundarics of 
cannon, remained untouched. 

If, however, it be meant to affirm, that the public edifices, oc- 
cupied by the legislature, by the chief magistrate, by the courts 
ol justice, and by the civil functionaries of the province of Up- 
per Canada, with the provincial library, were destroyed by the 
American force, it is an occun-ence which has never been before 
presented to the view of the American government, by its own 
officers, as matter of information; nor by any of the military 

• See the letters from general Dearborn to the secretary of war, dated the 27th 
and2Sth of April, 1»13. 

t See the letter from commodore Chauncv to the secretary of the navy, dated 
the -kh of August, lbi;3. 



or civil authorities of Canada, as matter of complaint; it is an 
occurrence which no American commander had in any degree 
authori/.ed or approved; and it is an occurrence which the Ame- 
rican government would have censured, and repaired with equal 
promj)iitudc and liberalitv. 

But a tale told thus out of date, for a special purpose, cannot 
command the confidence of the intt-lligent and the candid auditor; 
ior, even if the fact of conflagration be true, suspiciun must at- 
tend the cause for so long a concealment, with motives so strong 
for an immediate disclosure. When sir George Prevost, in 
February, 181i. acknowledged, that the measure of retaliation 
was full and complete, for all the preceding misconduct imput- 
ed to the American troops, was he not apprized of every fact, 
which had occurred at York, the capital of Upper Canada, ia 
the months of April and August, 1813? Yet, neither then, nor 
at any antecedent period, nor until the 2ith January, 1815, was 
the slightest intimation given of the retaliatory pretext, which 
is now oifered. When the admirals Warren and Cochrane 
were employed in pillaging and burning the villages, on the 
shores of the Chesapeake, were not all the retaliatory pretexts, 
for the barbarous warfare known to those commanders? And 
yet, " the fate inflicted by an American force on the seat of go- 
vernment in Upper Canada," was never suggested in justifica- 
tion, or excuse? And, finally, when the expedition was formed, 
in August, ISl't, for the destruction of the public edifices at 
Washington, was not the "similar fate which had been inflicted 
by an American force on the seat of government, in Upper Ca- 
nada," known to admiral Cochrane, as well as to sir George 
Prevost, who called upon the admiral (it is alleged) to carry 
into effect, mea'^ures of retaliation, against the inhabitants 
of the United Stales? And yet, both the call, and the compliance, 
are Ibunded (not upon the destruction of tlie public edifices at 
York, but) upon the wanton destruction committed l)y the Ame- 
rican army in Up))er Canada, upon the inhabitants of the pro- 
vince, for whom alone reparation was demanded. 

An obscurity, then, dwells upon the fact alleged by sir George 
Prevost, whicii has not l^een dissipated by inquiry. Whether any 
public edifice was improperly destroyed at York, or at what pe- 
riod the injury was done, if done at all, and by what hand it 
was inflicted, are points that ought to have been stattd, when 
the charge was made: surely it is enough, on ihe part of the 
American government, to repeat, that the fact alleged was ne- 
ver before brought to its knowledge, for investigation, disavow- 
al, or reparation. The silence of the military and civil officers of 
the provincial government of Canada, indicates, too, a sense of 
shame, or a conviction of the injustice of the present reproach. 



71 

It is known, that there could have been no other public edifice 
ior civil uses destroyed in Upper Canada, than tlu" house oi the 
provincial legislature, a building of so little cost and ornament, 
as hardly to merit consideration; and certain!)' aiVording neither 
parallel nor apology, for the conflagration of the splendid struc- 
tures, which adorned the metropolis of the United States. U, how- 
ever, that house was indeed destroyed, may it not have been an 
accidental consequence of the confusion, in which the explosion of 
the magaEine involved the town? Or, perhaps it was hastily i)cr« 
petraied by some of the enraged troops in the moment ol an- 
guish, for the loss of a beloved commander, and their compa- 
nioBS, who had been killed by that explosion, kindled as it was 
by a defeated enemy, for the sanguinary and unavailing purpose: 
Or, in tine, some sutfering individual, remembering the slaugh- 
ter of his brethren at the river Raisin, and exasperated by the 
spectacle of a human scalp, suspended in the legislative chamber, 
over the seat of the speaker, may, in the paroxysm of his ven- 
geance, have applied, unauthorized and unseen, the torch of 
vengeance and destruction. 

Many other flagrant instances of British violence, pillage, and 
conflagration, in dcflance of the laws of civilized hostilities, 
might be added to the catalogue, which has been exhibited; 
but the enumeration would be superfluous, and it is time to 
close so painful an exposition of the causes and character of the 
wai-. The exposition had become necessary to repel and relute 
the charges of the prince regent, when, by his declaration of 
January, 1S13, he unjustly states the United States to be the 
aggressors in the war; and insultingly ascribes the conduct of 
the American government, to the influence of French councils. 
It was, also, necessary to vindicate the course of the United 
States, in the prosecution of the war; and to expose to the 
view of the world, the barbarous system of hostilities, which 
the British government has pursued. Having accomplished 
these purposes, the American government recurs, with pleasure, 
to a contemplation of its early and continued eff'orts, for the 
restoration of peace. Jvotwithstanding the pressure of the re- 
cent v/rongs, and the unfriendly and illiberal disposition, which 
Great Britain has, at all times, manifested towards them, the 
United States have never indulged sentiments incompatible, 
with the reciprocity of good will, and an intercourse of iiuituai 
benefit and advantage. They can never repine, at seeing the 
British nation great, prosperous, and happy; safe in its mari- 
time rights; and powerful in its means of maintaining them: 
but, at the same time, they can never cease to desire, that the 
councils oi Great Britain should be guided by justice, and a res- 
pect for the equal rights of other nations, lier maritim« power 



I> 



may extend to all the legitimate objects of her sovereignty, and 
her commerce, without endangering the independence and 
peace of every other government. A balance of power, in this 
respect, is as necessary on the ocean, as on the land: and the 
control that it gives to the nations of the world, over the actions 
of each other, is as salutary in its operation to the individual 
government, which feels it, as to all the governments, by which, 
on the just principles of mutual support and defence, it may 
he exercised. On fair, and equal, and honorable terms, there- 
fore, peace is at the cht)ice of Great Britain; but if she still 
determine upon war, the United States, reposing upon the just- 
ness of their tause^ upon the patriotism of their citizens; upon 
the distinguished valor of their land and naval forces; and, 
above all, upon the dispensations of a hmeficent Providence; 
are ready to maintain the contest, for ♦.he preservat'on of the 
national independence, with the same energy and fortitude* 
which were displayed in acquiring it. 



"Washington, February 10, 181.^. 



